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 question had, or how many people supported it.
I would imagine that they got filtered out, but she was apparently aware that they existed based on a twitter comment [twitter.com]. Or she at least claims to have read through them at the point where there were about 300 questions.
Do you really expect her to answer your troll questions where you won't even acknowledge her gender? I wouldn't answer questions about my mental health, or about allegations that were already debunked by other commentators etc. Engaging would only feed into the harassment, it's best to just try to answer people with a genuine interest in what you are doing and forward copies of the worst of it to the FBI.
By the way, have you ever heard of retweeting? It's where you copy/paste a tweet that someone else sent
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...
Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5?
They certainly can, if she's such a techie that's certainly within her abilities. Interviewees have done so before.
I wonder, Is that related to how most of the hard questions / questions that don't fit Wu's agenda got mass downvoted to -1 flamebait [slashdot.org] from being +4 or +5 insightful after the post fell off the front page?
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.
It's extremely unreasonable. Many of the good questions ended up with ratings of 4. That's because a common strategy to disrupt the questioning is to wait until the last minute and moderate down all the rating 5 comments you don't like so that if the questions are chosen by rating none of them will get picked (and since it's the last minute, the ti
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: So the good questions were ignored. (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 question had, or how many people supported it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: So the good questions were ignored. (Score:4, Informative)
We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.
He claims to have read through all the questions on Twitter [archive.is].
And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged into [twitter.com] when faking harassment again! Oops!
Re: (Score:2)
We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.
He claims to have read through all the questions on Twitter [archive.is].
And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged into [twitter.com] when faking harassment again! Oops!
Now that should be modded informative.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. Not taking sides, but your sarcasm detector might be broken?
Re: (Score:2)
Replied to wrong post. Should be attached to the parent.
Re: (Score:3)
And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged into [twitter.com] when faking harassment again! Oops!
Sarcasm in text. It's hard. And some people just don't want to understand, which makes it harder.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really expect her to answer your troll questions where you won't even acknowledge her gender? I wouldn't answer questions about my mental health, or about allegations that were already debunked by other commentators etc. Engaging would only feed into the harassment, it's best to just try to answer people with a genuine interest in what you are doing and forward copies of the worst of it to the FBI.
By the way, have you ever heard of retweeting? It's where you copy/paste a tweet that someone else sent
Re: (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...
Re: (Score:2)
Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5?
They certainly can, if she's such a techie that's certainly within her abilities. Interviewees have done so before.
Re: (Score:1)
Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5?
They certainly can, if she's such a techie that's certainly within her abilities. Interviewees have done so before.
I wonder, Is that related to how most of the hard questions / questions that don't fit Wu's agenda got mass downvoted to -1 flamebait [slashdot.org] from being +4 or +5 insightful after the post fell off the front page?
Re: (Score:2)
It's extremely unreasonable. Many of the good questions ended up with ratings of 4. That's because a common strategy to disrupt the questioning is to wait until the last minute and moderate down all the rating 5 comments you don't like so that if the questions are chosen by rating none of them will get picked (and since it's the last minute, the ti
Re: (Score:1)
We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.
Well, we know she saw at least some of them, because she complained about them. [archive.is]
Note that in Brianna's circle, disagreement is "harassment" or being "toxic".