Just like many people predicted in the submission for asking the questions, it looks like the good, hard-hitting questions were totally ignored.
What's the point of having these/. interviews, regardless of who they're with, if all we get are answers to lame, uninteresting questions?
This isn't the only case where this has happened, of course. The same thing happened with the Linus Torvalds interview a few weeks ago. The best questions remained ignored, or if answered indirectly, the answers were pretty half-
Brianna Wu doesn't fail to disappoint yet again. Always ducking the hard questions. Too bad the truth is already out there, and failing to address it yet again only adds more confirmation. Cowardly to the end.
We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.
Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5? That's a fairly low bar to hit, and probably a bit unreasonable.
I think it more likely that one of the editorial types gathered up the questions, using the best spelled of various repeats among questions (ok, that's a stretch), and decided what to send. I don't expect that they'd send anything that was outright abusive, no matter what score the questio
We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.
Perhaps Slashdot could use a new Director of Talent [washingtonpost.com]? I hear a pretty good one [wikipedia.org] just went on the market after her former employer slashed and burned any remaining semblance of their credibility...
So the good questions were ignored. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like many people predicted in the submission for asking the questions, it looks like the good, hard-hitting questions were totally ignored.
What's the point of having these /. interviews, regardless of who they're with, if all we get are answers to lame, uninteresting questions?
This isn't the only case where this has happened, of course. The same thing happened with the Linus Torvalds interview a few weeks ago. The best questions remained ignored, or if answered indirectly, the answers were pretty half-
Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.
Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5? That's a fairly low bar to hit, and probably a bit unreasonable.
I think it more likely that one of the editorial types gathered up the questions, using the best spelled of various repeats among questions (ok, that's a stretch), and decided what to send. I don't expect that they'd send anything that was outright abusive, no matter what score the questio
Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score:3)
Perhaps Slashdot could use a new Director of Talent [washingtonpost.com]? I hear a pretty good one [wikipedia.org] just went on the market after her former employer slashed and burned any remaining semblance of their credibility...