Just pointing out this (reality distortion) is a general phenomenon. Have seen the same in all big companies (& many small). As an employee you want the best for the company and you naturally imbibe the company culture and that is perfectly fine. But there is a line and this is something one has to watch out for as an employee. As an example, seeing any critical comment from outside as an attack on the company.
It is good that an employee explained how this particular event happened and that is to their credit.
I respectfully, and vehemently disagree. Informing someone that they may be drinking too much of their company's Kool-Aid, without knowing what is in it, is a moral obligation.
Despicable that you present this as a bannable offense.
Sorry, but garden-variety internet comments and cheap personal attacks don't rise to the noble level of moral obligation. The comment plainly broke the site rules. That's not allowed here. If people have noble duties to fulfill, they can do that without breaking the rules.
I too don't think there is any "moral obligation" involved but I did feel it was perfectly fine to point out what I did. I quoted their "I work for MS" to provide the context for my comment, nothing more.
Sorry, but that's definitely not accurate. You quoted it as part of a personal attack: implying that someone was lying about making a mistake, imputing sinister motivations to them instead, and adding a name-calling putdown into the mix (accusing them of being inside a "reality distortion field", as if you know more about their world than they do). All that is clearly against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
You are insinuating astroturfing with no evidence other than "I work at Microsoft" and your personal, albeit somewhat justified, belief of "MS bad". It's not a constructive comment.
Ok, but anyone could say that about any comment, so from a moderation perspective that is either an empty point or means that we shouldn't moderate anything at all.
For practical purposes, someone has to make judgment calls about these things. The way we do that is that we have a set of guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), and moderators who make calls about which accounts are breaking them. We try to be as even-handed as possible when we do that, but certainly no one is going to agree with every call we make. Nevertheless, someone has to do the job, and that includes banning accounts when people break the rules and aren't interested in modifying their behavior.
Moderation is absolutely necessary. What bothers me is that we are 4 or 5 comments deep, and you still seem to not understand why I spoke up in the first place.
The comment you initially replied to did not come off as a personal attack at all to me, in fact, there was nothing personal about it. They took data that was shared with them and used their experience to spit out their own thoughts on the matter.
So, I am calling you out for being a bit too zealous with the power you wield. What you do with my perspective being shared with you is up to you, but you're doing a lot to not just ask yourself "Was I being too harsh?" ... Here you have a human telling you that yes, that was too harsh.
Calling out the bitter flavor of a corporation's kool-aid is not a personal attack on anyone. Period.
> I took the comment to be a refreshing dose of reality.
This is how I meant it but I could have phrased it or presented it differently as this point got lost at least with the moderators and may be many more. Will try to be more careful in the future.
I appreciate your speaking up. And I also appreciate the moderators in trying to keep the discussion standards high. They have a tough job trying to decipher the intent of every commenter.
I don't work at Microsoft but I can confirm. There are so many "suggestions" for Microsoft Teams. I don't know if there exists another company whose employees are more critical of Microsoft Teams than Microsoft.
My personal conspiracy theory is Teams would have died long ago if not for strong support from the top.
Which is odd because Github doesn't use Teams, they're Slack based. As in, if I set up a meeting with my Github counterparts they're late because they had to install Teams.
when $new_repo in $msft_github:
echo $standard_license > LICENSE.md
Could just be normal practices, and doesn’t check if a license already exists because it’s usually handling non-forked OSS repos. What’s the phrase? “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence”.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html