Re:Uber Executive, Linked to an Old Harassment Claim, Resigns
by notimetorelax on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @07:05AM
(#13753124)
One doesn't prove the other.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Uber Executive, Linked to an Old Harassment Claim, Resigns
by lawless123 on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @07:14AM
(#13753169)
You're right, there's smoke everywhere and the stern of the ship is on fire but that doesn't prove the bow is on fire.
Re:Uber Executive, Linked to an Old Harassment Claim, Resigns
by madeofpalk on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @07:45AM
(#13753331)
I'm not trying to defend Uber! They're certainly a company that has very 'flexible' morals and ethics.
However the claim "Kalanick has an ordered list of employees he's ready to fire until this thing goes away. [He probably did] hire someone just so he can fire them after a month or two." is absolutely unfounded and is based in such little reality that it doesn't belong here on HN.
Re:Uber Executive, Linked to an Old Harassment Claim, Resigns
by allengeorge on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @08:20AM
(#13753500)
That was not the statement the OP made. He said "Kalanick probably has an ordered list of employees...", which is not the same as your interpretation ("Kalanick has an ordered list of employees..."). One is a supposition, the other is an assertion.
Re:Uber Executive, Linked to an Old Harassment Claim, Resigns
by washadjeffmad on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @11:28AM
(#13754922)
What they meant was, conditioned on the evidence presented about Uber's actions towards journalists, the likelihood of the existence of list of employees to fire is unaffected.
The GP tried to support the probability of their supposition with an unrelated fact, which was called out.
A person hating puppies doesn't incline them towards murder any more than liking licorice, even if both might be considered by some to be signs of character flaw or moral failing. Sometimes when there's smoke, there's just some guy trying to have a cigarette in peace away from terrible, judgemental people.