I understand dang but I worked at Apple. There is way more to this than these snarky replies are making you think. They aren't just herp derp we think Apple is despotic.
You know the audience of this website. Why does Apple get this response from your highly educated tech audience?
Perhaps we have personal experience we cannot speak more openly about due to NDAs but would still like to let out a quip.
If your comment is motivated by substantive personal experience, that's great, but then the thing to do is to share some of the information that your view is based on. You know it, but the rest of us don't. A snarky swipe with no information is just as bad a comment whether it's posted by someone with relevant experience or not.
If you don't share relevant information, it may as well not exist. If you do share it, you should follow the site guidelines and edit out snark and swipes, so your substantive comment has a better chance of persuading the reader, and a lesser chance of provoking (f)lame responses from others.
> Why does Apple get this response from your highly educated tech audience?
> Perhaps we have personal experience we cannot speak more openly about due to NDAs but would still like to let out a quip.
It looks like you can speak openly enough about it to say more than just "Hello Apple Global Security", which is the run-of-the-mill internet stuff we're trying to avoid on this site. If that's what you mean by letting out a quip, please don't.
> It looks like you can speak openly enough about it to say more than just "Hello Apple Global Security", which is the run-of-the-mill internet stuff we're trying to avoid on this site. If that's what you mean by letting out a quip, please don't.
> If your comment is motivated by substantive personal experience, that's great, but then the thing to do is to share some of the information that your view is based on. You know it, but the rest of us don't.
I didn't know Ashley by name but after having watched her video last night from the Mastadon link on this thread, I now remember I had seen her earlier posts. Either way she comes off extremely legitimate, I spent at least an hour reviewing the things she posted yesterday. It is impressive if anything the data she has collected.
Calling her a hypochondriac like one of the GP replies did, trying to convince the reader to brush this whole thing away as someone who is squeeze money out of Apple. Some of the response on this thread is immediately recognizable by people who have gone through it themselves as Apple Global Security damage control.
She was on here a few years ago socking to promote herself, she makes commentaries about things, but then when you look at the evidence, it doesn't add up. She wrote in Slack before she even went mega viral that if we never heard from her again it was because Apple gave her enough money to go live in Hawaii and start a private law practice.
I don't like Apple secrecy and after what they did during the wage survey, I don't trust anyone on the People team or in Security. But that doesn't make Ashley right or credible. She was a bully to other women in nearly every situation like everyone else in leadership. She baited us into confiding in her about our issues with management and the People team and then she ratted us out to the People team and we were all harassed into deciding whether or not we wanted a coerced investigation into our issues. What's worse is that Ashley convinced us that the People/Security teams were spying on us, when really it was her using us as some kind of leverage trying to squeeze them for money. She uses us still in her evidence in all her litigation against Apple. She never asked us for consent, she doesn't care. Just like when she worked with us, we were just things to be collected and used for her to get ahead.
If you're seriously accusing me of being Apple Global Security, it should be fairly obvious from my comment history that that's not the case (and explicitly: I have only ever been employed as an engineer, and only by companies that are antagonistic to Apple).
Calling out the fact that she appears to have constantly changed her story makes her look untrustworthy. It could be a smear tactic by corporate enforcers, or it could be that she's genuinely untrustworthy!
If someone else is wrong, you are of course welcome to respond with correct information and better arguments.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Edit: you crossed into personal attack in at least one other recent comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40643584) and we've also had to warn you about breaking the site guidelines in the past (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35105366). That's not cool, so please don't do this again.