Of course... If you send someone unencrypted data, they can read it. Companies at least have to follow some laws regarding the data - don't expect that with private instances (not controlled by you).
Eh... Was it really that hard to guess what they're gonna do with it? How long ago was that? It's not like their abuse of [foreign] workers is anything new.
> How long ago was that? It's not like their abuse of [foreign] workers is anything new.
It's also not like it's common knowledge. Myself I only learned about it couple years ago, here on HN, because of some comment threads that segued into discussions about Qatar construction projects.
Point being, without knowing anything about OP, including where are they from, you can't assume they had a chance of knowing this before taking the job, or even learning about it on the job. The world is awash with news stories about everything - often you learn about a huge tragedy only when you chance on a story about it.
I expect it to be very common knowledge, but possibly it's only known in Europe, as we are much closer to the Middle East and the football angle is more relevant.
Someone shares an insightful story that others can learn from and your first thought is to shame them, and then without knowing the first thing about them or what else they've done with their life, you tell them the best way to atone for their sins?
This thread is such a great opportunity for learning and curiosity and yet you choose to see it only as an opportunity for moral grandstanding, possibly scaring away other people with interesting stories to tell. Why are you on this website?
> IMHO it'd be nice if you donated some of your earnings to a human rights focused NGO operating in the area.
Is there somehow a difference in impact depending on who does this? Maybe if you chipped in, the Qatar slave workers would be even better off. Or is this just about guilt-tripping strangers for their past? :-)
>Now they should try to make it right - donating money to people trying to fix the situation is a good way to do that.
You're assuming that this individual hasn't already done something to atone (which goes against HN's rule to assume best intentions). That, coupled with a tone that comes off as though you know better than this person, basically round out the definition of "condescending".
I am not assuming anything. I made a suggestion, nothing else. They're free to do nothing if they feel like they already did enough. You're assuming I'm assuming <...>, which goes against the HN rule to assume best intentions.
Donating money rarely fixes problems. What it does is create organizations that draw their lifeblood from the continued existence of the problem, and continued donations of money.
I don't see anything patronizing or showing superiority in what I wrote. I am saying this as a peer, not as a superior.
It's kinda weird to expect people not to make mistakes such as this if nobody tells them it's wrong. And it's normal for people to tell other people they do bad stuff if they do.
>I don't see anything patronizing or showing superiority in what I wrote. I am saying this as a peer, not as a superior.
And you have four different peers who have responded to you suggesting that you are being condescending. Take a step back and ask why - intention and tone are two different things, and if you get the latter wrong then we will misunderstand the former.
>It's kinda weird to expect people not to make mistakes such as this if nobody tells them it's wrong. And it's normal for people to tell other people they do bad stuff if they do.
Just let 'em be. You're not a hero. They admitted what they did, and why they know it's wrong. You're not doing anything other than going, "Yep, you sure did fuck up."
So you’re assuming that you know better than them what they’ve done wrong, that you have to tell them, and how they should make up for it. That’s how your tone is coming across.
> Investors losing their skin? That's all risk/reward. They took big risk for big reward but lost.
No, it's not OK and it's not all risk/reward. The risk is whether the product can succeed and be better than others' products/services - not whether the company you're investing in is a fraud - that's what the legal system tries to prevent.
The alternating left-to-right right-to-left lines were done because you could read it easier that way - they used to have gigantic books/scrolls, the lines were very long.
It does matter, the risk calculation gets way worse once you start counting in the possibility of fraud. It's going to be 9/10 if each one of the 10 actually try their hardest to succeed. It's going to be 10/10 if fraud isn't prevented.
> This is possibly the biggest financial crisis in the history of everything.
Isn't that a huge hyperbole? I really don't see how it could even remotely resemble anything at all what it was like in 2008. It's no more than a footnote in practically every single country other than the US (and there probably too).
