Re:Microsoft: We remain committed to our partnership with Op...
by User3456335 on Monday November 20, 2023 @04:43AM
(#38345528)
The corporate equivalent of "Who the f** is that guy?"
Re:Microsoft: We remain committed to our partnership with Op...
by 15457345234 on Monday November 20, 2023 @04:45AM
(#38345559)
I was interpreting it more along the lines of 'we have absolutely no common ground, shared values or pre-existing relationships with that guy' myself...
Re:Microsoft: We remain committed to our partnership with Op...
by rat9988 on Monday November 20, 2023 @04:51AM
(#38345629)
Indeed, but corporate speak is a lote more warmer usually. They at least know his resume, have talked a bit, and then they sugar coat everything.
Re:Microsoft: We remain committed to our partnership with Op...
by upwardbound on Monday November 20, 2023 @05:08AM
(#38345789)
I don't think he meant anything as mean-spirited as that. I think it's more of just "I don't know this guy at all", or more succinctly "who the f is this guy" as the GP comment put it haha.
[Edit: oops, I dumb. Codethief correctly pointed out that I made a mistake - I probably would have failed any class about intro to set theory.. Derp.]
Re:Microsoft: We remain committed to our partnership with Op...
by codethief on Monday November 20, 2023 @05:13AM
(#38345829)
> they don't have any mutual connections with each other.
> (I deduced this because the list of mutual connections I have with Satya, and the list of mutual connections I have with Emmett, are disjoint.)
Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see how one thing follows from the other. They could have a mutual connection that you're not connected to, couldn't they?
Re:Microsoft: We remain committed to our partnership with Op...
by barrkel on Monday November 20, 2023 @05:14AM
(#38345845)
That is not a sound deduction.
Hmm