7 ms·
I am actually no longer working for Meta. I do think the title reflects the news and is factually correct. But happy for @dang to change it back as it’s not exa
by pesenti 4y ago
I am actually no longer working for Meta. I do think the title reflects the news and is factually correct. But happy for @dang to change it back as it’s not exactly the title of the article
- NegativeLatency 4y agoDo you still hold stock?
- pesenti 4y agoI do.
- 202206241203 4y agoI am sure the market move is going to be drastic.
- dljsjr 4y agoIdeally the submission title would have matched the blog title and then not only would it have been factually correct but it would have also not had any omissions. It seems disingenuous to me to post a submission with that title knowing how unpopular the FB account requirement is in this circle while tacitly omitting the fact that a Meta account is going to be required. It might not have been your intent but it did come across as suspicious and as it is it comes across as a Lie of Omission.
- pesenti 4y agoSure, agreed, I try to always submit the exact title for that reason but I got lazy as I was on my phone.
- lolinder 4y agoIt does not reflect the news accurately. Very few people here distinguish between "Meta" and "Facebook". An account is still required to use the device, and that account is still owned by Meta/Facebook. (As an aside, you should probably update your HN profile, it still reads "Now VP of AI at Facebook.")
- upupandup 4y ago
- jjulius 4y ago>I do think the title reflects the news and is factually correct. This is one of those times where one is only "technically" correct thanks to weasel-y phrasing.