938 pts · March 22, 2013
The point of the story was that you didn’t appear to think there are any negative consequences to what she did. And I have first hand experience of a time it almost cost me.
My point is that if you’re suspicious you it is your responsibility to fully examine the situation before acting. It was relatively harmless here but could have gone much worse. I’m glad she seems to understand that more than you do.
I’ve always been conflicted about how all that went. 1 - I was unfairly judged for just doing my job. 2 - I had the privilege of having an inside line with the cops that I don’t think should have mattered in that situation even if it benefitted me. 3 - I think about how close I got to losing my job and maybe my degree, and how many people weren’t that lucky.
I was an RA in college, trust me I’ve heard plenty of them. Empathize with me for a minute. Once on that job I was doing my usual rounds when a girl in the building decided I was up to no good walking up and down the halls. Called the cops, realized she hadn’t actually seen me doing anything, then started making shit up to get them out here because she was convinced I was a creep. Lucky for me the patrol that answered knew me since RAs end up calling police sometimes 1/2
Now who's projecting
Perhaps anger isn't the right word. Being wrong was relatively harmless here but what about other places. Is this how they just approach everything? That's troubles me.
With some basic investigation you could probably tell the guy who got engaged was not the account owner. Instead she steamed forward on righteous anger to blow up someone she though deserved it. Fury is not a replacement for investigation and logic and we shouldn't encourage people to treat it as such.
Would it be reasonable to assume, in any scenario, there most likely is fraud in any system with that much money and that little oversight?
But she's ready to draw the goal posts at "We received everything we paid for." and call that a successful audit with would not fly in any other context. You can't get charged 10K for a coffee cup and claim it's all good because we found it in the cabinet. Hammering JS for not using this definition of audit is disingenuous.
Her claims about the definition of an audit are still very disingenuous in the full interview. If you can receipts to equipment but not that it was actually spent effectively that still failing audit by any reasonable standard. It's a start but definitely not where the goal posts should be. I find claiming so while assuming the audience doesn't know different to be quite insulting.
Comments like this are important because a lot of the "French Revolution" people don't seem to know it ended with Napoleon.
Depends on their mood.
The Mongols tended to bring siege engineers with them on campaign. Is there something about European fortification that was special?
Would like to subscribe to your news letter. Appreciate it man!
Problem? Doesn't scale well. If a lot of people make the list it becomes a dick measuring contest of who can waste the most electricity.
Without getting into tech jargon. You can create a list of transactions that is incredibly easy to verify but incredibly hard to forge.
I don't have to be faster than the bear. Just faster than my friend. :D
The point is so that if someone else wanted to challenge the transaction, they would have to do even more work than you did to prove it.
NFTs use block chain tech. The idea is to make to process of making your transaction incredibly inefficient on purpose. (1/2)
Accusing someone else of semantic tricks while shamelessly begging the question. (Sips tea)
*Bad Elder Dragon
But that's Fellatio Deltoro
I used to do that. Then my friend pointed out that I make myself miserable.
I ride like 1/2 can't see me and the other 1/2 are actively trying to kill me
Neglected maintenance. Owner never maintained or replaced their final drive. Like the people who run tires till the tread is gone.
Well yea. I have two pelvises too. /s
The point of the story was that you didn’t appear to think there are any negative consequences to what she did. And I have first hand experience of a time it almost cost me.
My point is that if you’re suspicious you it is your responsibility to fully examine the situation before acting. It was relatively harmless here but could have gone much worse. I’m glad she seems to understand that more than you do.
I’ve always been conflicted about how all that went. 1 - I was unfairly judged for just doing my job. 2 - I had the privilege of having an inside line with the cops that I don’t think should have mattered in that situation even if it benefitted me. 3 - I think about how close I got to losing my job and maybe my degree, and how many people weren’t that lucky.
I was an RA in college, trust me I’ve heard plenty of them. Empathize with me for a minute. Once on that job I was doing my usual rounds when a girl in the building decided I was up to no good walking up and down the halls. Called the cops, realized she hadn’t actually seen me doing anything, then started making shit up to get them out here because she was convinced I was a creep. Lucky for me the patrol that answered knew me since RAs end up calling police sometimes 1/2
Now who's projecting
Perhaps anger isn't the right word. Being wrong was relatively harmless here but what about other places. Is this how they just approach everything? That's troubles me.
With some basic investigation you could probably tell the guy who got engaged was not the account owner. Instead she steamed forward on righteous anger to blow up someone she though deserved it. Fury is not a replacement for investigation and logic and we shouldn't encourage people to treat it as such.
Would it be reasonable to assume, in any scenario, there most likely is fraud in any system with that much money and that little oversight?
But she's ready to draw the goal posts at "We received everything we paid for." and call that a successful audit with would not fly in any other context. You can't get charged 10K for a coffee cup and claim it's all good because we found it in the cabinet. Hammering JS for not using this definition of audit is disingenuous.
Her claims about the definition of an audit are still very disingenuous in the full interview. If you can receipts to equipment but not that it was actually spent effectively that still failing audit by any reasonable standard. It's a start but definitely not where the goal posts should be. I find claiming so while assuming the audience doesn't know different to be quite insulting.
Comments like this are important because a lot of the "French Revolution" people don't seem to know it ended with Napoleon.
Depends on their mood.
The Mongols tended to bring siege engineers with them on campaign. Is there something about European fortification that was special?
Would like to subscribe to your news letter. Appreciate it man!
Problem? Doesn't scale well. If a lot of people make the list it becomes a dick measuring contest of who can waste the most electricity.
Without getting into tech jargon. You can create a list of transactions that is incredibly easy to verify but incredibly hard to forge.
I don't have to be faster than the bear. Just faster than my friend. :D
The point is so that if someone else wanted to challenge the transaction, they would have to do even more work than you did to prove it.
NFTs use block chain tech. The idea is to make to process of making your transaction incredibly inefficient on purpose. (1/2)
Accusing someone else of semantic tricks while shamelessly begging the question. (Sips tea)
*Bad Elder Dragon
But that's Fellatio Deltoro
I used to do that. Then my friend pointed out that I make myself miserable.
I ride like 1/2 can't see me and the other 1/2 are actively trying to kill me
Neglected maintenance. Owner never maintained or replaced their final drive. Like the people who run tires till the tread is gone.
Well yea. I have two pelvises too. /s