I've made statements on HN I'd prefer are anonymous to the general public?
Also, there was no mention they were handing the info over to a 3rd party. If you explicitly state something like that, you should follow it and/or change it when the situation changes.
I don't have that issue with git repos.
I'm kinda amused a yc employee went through the effort of downvoting it after pointing out this situation is caused by y'all not following what you actually have in your notices for things.
"Please put a valid address in the email field, or we won't be able to send you a new password if you forget yours. Your address is only visible to you and us. Crawlers and other users can't see it."
I prefer being publicly anonymous and if I answered your question there is literally only 1 person I could be. I suppose that makes me paranoid but I'd rather not create drama.
For the sake of example, Amazon.com would be sufficiently equivalent as we do sell products via Amazon. And the fact I complain about Amazon in places gives away that we do do that. :P
> even if you do win then other companies will mark you as a troublemaker. Getting hired is going to get a lot harder.
This isn't really true. Most businesses don't do thorough background checks and the frequency of people claiming fake degrees w/o getting caught is proof of that.
I've known two people who successfully sued their employer. One had no trouble getting a job after that. It was the second suit that they lost that caused their issues (they looked like they were paranoid and had mental issues based on the company's successful defense). Even tho they are a friend of my parents, my parents and I both agree that they weren't acting all there at the time and that likely came across in interviews.
The other one only had trouble because the area was so small it was literally the only member of that industry within 300 miles. No one wanted to pay for relocation for non-management positions during a recession. Once they relocated with their own money, they had no issues.
I've never heard of an instance of someone being "blacklisted" outside of a failed lawsuit where they were shown to be deceptive and/or mentally unstable.
Perhaps it does but I'm not convinced without evidence it happens and I can't find any that shows it happens the majority of the time let alone all the time :/
It was partially sarcastic, partially not. In 2014, its about as relevant as complaining about links between the Mafia & Unions. They used to be connected in places but it was relatively small scale (e.g. local) and not on the scale people like the parent claimed.
Its explicitly designed into Zappo's business model and an intentional side effect. They have a 1 year return policy + free returns specifically to encourage people to send more returns so they are more likely to risk buying things that might not work out.
For the same products, I have a ~9% return rate. :/
I'd prefer a better educated populace that realizes the "technical evidence" being submitted in many cases is essentially witness testimony and not physical evidence [e.g. fingerprints on the murder weapon] which I think many people believe.
Witness testimony is perfectly fine as long as it isn't implied to be anything greater than that.
Also, there was no mention they were handing the info over to a 3rd party. If you explicitly state something like that, you should follow it and/or change it when the situation changes.
I don't have that issue with git repos.
I'm kinda amused a yc employee went through the effort of downvoting it after pointing out this situation is caused by y'all not following what you actually have in your notices for things.