Right, making it look like you know what you’re doing is a great way to advance to the point where you cause real damage. I’m glad you don’t have to do that, and aren’t getting trampled by the people who do.

Oh, uh. I’m wondering if I laid the irony down too thick. I think the comment you originally replied to is probably correct. I think your questions are typical escape hatches for men to be blameless in any situation. I can imagine you didn’t mean them that way, but that’s what’s usually meant by them.

You’re absolutely right. The most likely scenario is that the person with first-hand knowledge misinterpreted the situation. These poor men and their sensitive feelings…

Irony aside, I’m sure it’s a complex situation with different relevant points to any perspective, but the events as told line up with my own experiences.

I’ve witnessed many of the kinds of situations described here and I think the proposed mechanics adequately explain them.

He grows more powerful by the day…

I can’t watch yet, but I have to know: how angry is Steve?

You need to get out more. I totally get that you would think that’s the case, but only if you’re not exploring parts of the internet outside your bubble. It’s absolutely written.

People deleted the content they had access to. As protesting subreddits went back to being public, the content they hadn’t been able to delete became visible again.

Sure, but also the broader “join my Patreon to get access to my Discord server” market. It’s actually a pretty clever move, if there’s a market for it (there is) and if it replaces more insidious revenue streams (it won’t).

[flashbacks to the backlog being wiped out because “the client already signed off on the release”]

Or “How Signal is closer in functionality to WhatsApp by the day, because it turns out people like the functionality of WhatsApp.”

I was thinking about how this would happen and I remembered when signing up for services using Google login, I’d always get a list of information the website would have access to, including the name listed under the Google account. When I didn’t consent to that, I went back.

Now, is there a line somewhere between strictly getting a user’s consent and the user having an expectation of privacy? Yes, and they may have landed on the wrong side of it.

Suffice it to say, this is one of the reasons I prefer to sign up with an email address.

Risks that are already described.

The headline does it’s job getting clicks by making it sound like reviewers names may already be public.

I’m looking at it from a perspective of intentionality. Careless? Definitely. A risk ? For sure. But the situation is still not as the title implies.

If I’m reading this correctly, they’re adding your name to your site profile, but that’s not visible and is not linked to your reviews.

That specificity makes the situation much less terrifying than the title alone would imply.

Hey, you can cross-post this to rblind.com!

I’m gonna go find an SRE to hug, it sounds like they need it.

You joke, but that’s how a lot of the stuff I work on is documented. Passed along from one developer to the next - legends, really.

I was not prepared for this. I came here for jokes.

You were absolutely right! It’s been a while, huh? WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger are gatekeepers and WhatsApp is supposed to open up based on the Signal Protocol. I guess we’re settling on that.