Case A: the man gets the benefit of the doubt, negative comments get downvoted Case B: the woman gets a ton of FUD, top comment is FUD.
-
-
Replying to @danluu
There's more to it, though — the woman in question is notorious for harassing and publicly shaming people she disagrees with.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bahstgwamt @kragen
The HN comments (and lobsters comments) imply that, but IMO they don't actually make a case for it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danluu
I could be wrong; this is my reading of the "Opalgate" bug report from 2015. What did you think about it?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bahstgwamt @kragen
The thing I dislike about that thread is the piling on and the way arguments are (IMO) phrased to score points, not convince. But...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
...that's mostly other people. Also, even if I strongly disagreed with her behavior, I think people often behave differenty in diff contexts
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
and I wouldn't read much, if anything, into her work behavior from comments in a github thread on a project she doesn't work on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Alternately, there are some people who are known for being raging assholes on the internet who are also known for being nice to work with
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I think it can generally be agreed that she's not *that* abrasive, so I don't think there's strong evidence that she's not nice to work with
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
IMO, one should have a pretty high bar for standard of proof before trashing someone in public if they're not a public figure and...
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
...IMO, the HN commenters do not present proof beyond a resonable doubt or even clear and convincing evidence
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.