[Kalium]

I'm not implying anything of the sort. My point is that an unsupported assertion should not be treated as a well-supported truth. All we know right now is what a single person believes.

I am not questioning what Ibraheem believes. I'm saying that statements of fact require support.

[mandmandam]

Ok, but why question only the "statement of fact" made in response to the "statement of fact" that "they locked themselves in the CTO's office and this is why they were fired?"

Why value a random HN stranger's account over the account of an employee who sacrificed a lucrative career to bring attention to this? Is it perhaps because you ideologically agree with one "statement of fact" over the other? Or is it more self interested?

[Kalium]

I think a discourse that runs:

> Assertion one

> Assertion two, claiming assertion one requires asserter two to be a liar

is one that can benefit from being grounded a bit.

On a personal level, I do not believe that the magnitude of a person's sacrifice empowers their beliefs with any particular level of truth, accuracy, or moral imperative. The magnitude of a person's sacrifice is, in my mind, a statement only and strictly on the depths of their conviction and willingness to sacrifice. History is replete with examples of people who have sacrificed much for reasons good, bad, or just plain weird to our eyes.

[Vegenoid]

This person did not bring up the lack of proof for the claim unprompted, they responded to somebody asking about the truth of the statement:

> So is this a lie?

They were responding to this, and my interpretation of what they said is: "It doesn't appear to be a lie, but we do not know if is true, as somebody can be incorrect without lying".