Seems bad but I also have no context for this. She’s commented on the radar when it was created, so it’s not like it’s some hidden secret. I can see internally she also blacked out bits like the summary that are very strange edits as they’re not secrets at all… like indications that this is tagged literally as a joke task.
It easily could have been a joke rather than malicious… perhaps she had a ton of work to do and this radar was a tongue-in-cheek way of acknowledging that.
That’s the problem with these pieces of “proof” — when it’s one sided and completely devoid of commentary from the other people involved, it’s easy to spin a story one way or another.
In fact, looking at that and her editing choices only further confirms to me she’s grasping at straws and it’s not at all what it purports to be publicly.
The more I think about this the madder I get, because it discredits to me those who are actually getting abused and their ability to tell a story and be believed.
Let’s look at the facts with this:
1. She blacks out context and parts from the beginning that tag this as a joke task.
2. She comments on this right away, so it’s not hidden from her.
3. If you’re trying to abuse a co-worker, are you really going to do it not only with permanent record, tagged as a joke, but also comment “MUAHAHAHAHA”? Like some generic evil villain?
Notice she doesn’t give ANY context around this, who the people are, and what this could possibly be referring to. When you look at this with all the other “evidence” across her claims at Apple and beyond, she had negative credibility in my mind.
Keep in mind her job category (from what I can surmise about these people) is one that involves a ton of work and corralling cats. Apple is notorious for high ambitions which can stressfully lead to a lot of work, and the timing of this is around product announcements when people work their asses off. I just don’t see it.
It easily could have been a joke rather than malicious… perhaps she had a ton of work to do and this radar was a tongue-in-cheek way of acknowledging that.
That’s the problem with these pieces of “proof” — when it’s one sided and completely devoid of commentary from the other people involved, it’s easy to spin a story one way or another.
In fact, looking at that and her editing choices only further confirms to me she’s grasping at straws and it’s not at all what it purports to be publicly.