Re:'How the Hell Did Document Leak?' – Meta Internal Mail Af...
by mandeepj on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @03:36PM
(#33168180)
> any emails sent from andy et al would be " @meta ," not " @fb"
Right! The reasonings does not make any sense, especially the above. Why would FB change its email addresses to Meta? Their stock ticker is still FB.
Re:'How the Hell Did Document Leak?' – Meta Internal Mail Af...
by colejohnson66 on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @03:47PM
(#33168341)
> Why would FB change its email addresses to Meta?
To go all in on the name change? `@fb.com` will probably just forward.
> Their stock ticker is still FB.
Not true since June 9[0]. Their NASDAQ ticker is $META[1]. Links to $FB[2] redirect to the correct one.
[0]: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/facebook-ticker-cha...
Re:'How the Hell Did Document Leak?' – Meta Internal Mail Af...
by mandeepj on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @04:34PM
(#33168893)
> Not true since June 9[0]. Their NASDAQ ticker is $META[1]. Links to $FB[2] redirect to the correct one.
Indeed! Thanks for the correction.
Re:'How the Hell Did Document Leak?' – Meta Internal Mail Af...
by duskwuff on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @10:34PM
(#33172065)
> If a url is not available to public that does not mean that the url does not exist
Compare the behavior of the following URLs:
Two of these are real companies that have signed up for Workplace. One is not. See if you can tell which is which.
Now, which of these does http://instagram.workplace.com/ seem most like?
>> 1. "http://instagram.workplace.com" isn't a URL that exists lmao 2. any emails sent from andy et al would be " @meta ," not " @fb " 3. a source just confirmed there's no email alias called "Internal"
If a url is not available to public that does not mean that the url does not exist “Lmao”