(no title)
tha0x5 | 5 years ago
Not really, it means people do care, which is opposite of the original claim.
>Do you really think that significant purchasing decisions are going to be influenced by this? That’s not a snarky rhetorical question, I’m actually asking.
Not sure honestly. Even if it's a series of small, insignificant purchaso decisions, it can still amount to something significant.
>I ask because I can tell you for a fact that at my large enterprise, they will not be. If anything, this incident will be used as an example by those looking for cover. “if an org like Microsoft can make this mistake, you really have no justification for being mad at our department for a similar leak.”
That sounds like an insanely toxic environment. This is illogic that you can apply to everything: "well, if Microsoft can get by with cooking the books and violating customer's privacy, so can we."
I think more people would think: "if this is how they handle customer search data, imagine how terribly they handle data elsewhere."
coldtea|5 years ago
The original claim was a casual "people don't care". Not a mathematical formalism for "absolutely nobody cares at all about this not even enough to wanna vote in on HN".
So, yeah, a tiny number of people (the HN upvoters) "do care" in the sense of voting this up and wanting to read about this. Then again, they also care about all minds of trivial posts, so there's that.
That still doesn't mean people actually care, either the billions of customers, or the hundreds of thousands of execs making decisions about using MS or not.
Heck, I read it and I don't care. It's not like I'll stop using MS services, or as if like other companies haven't had the same.
>Not sure honestly. Even if it's a series of small, insignificant purchaso decisions, it can still amount to something significant.
How about it's a insignificant series of small, insignificant purchasing decisions? It's 2020, we have seen the same thing from 10+ other major companies who never had much of an issue after it (stocks, sales, etc) wise.
>That sounds like an insanely toxic environment. This is illogic that you can apply to everything: "well, if Microsoft can get by with cooking the books and violating customer's privacy, so can we."
Companies do apply it to everything. E.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering#Notable_cases
tha0x5|5 years ago
Eh, I disagree. They stated "literally no one cares", but the fact that it's news and hit the front page literally means someone cares. No math involved. QED.
>So, yeah, a tiny number of people (the HN upvoters) "do care" in the sense of voting this up and wanting to read about this. Then again, they also care about all minds of trivial posts, so there's that.
It wasn't trivial if Microsoft cared enough to fix it in a few days, which is like light speed for Microsoft.
>Heck, I read it and I don't care.
Anecdote, immaterial here.
>How about it's a insignificant series of small, insignificant purchasing decisions?
Possible, all conjecture at this point.
>Companies do apply it to everything. E.g.
You're just agreeing with what I said. It's illogic though because those companies didn't get away with it. Your links prove my point.