11–20 of 196 posts
Some are pointing straight to malice and intentional misleading.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they wanted to make it genuinely work originally, but realised they could save a lot of money, resources and sprints just faking it in js.
More laziness and “oh shit this project was bigger than we thought let’s find a shortcut” than outright malice.
Here's the twitter thread in the screenshot: https://twitter.com/OphirHarpaz/status/1184486445039411201
Someone else in that thread asks: > I wonder if they report a lower price to Google as well. Presumably for the little boxes which show up below certain Google ads with price points []. I know that's against Google Ads' policies, but has anyone heard of it happening nonetheless? [] https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2497706
Is this legal?
Yes, I think it is false advertising, so should be illegal.
The only way out of it I can think of would be: if the site could prove that some number of people, greater than 45, were hitting that specific query on that specific page, then vacuously, they could say that any number of people between 1 and 45 were also looking at the offer. But then, why wouldn't they just display "at least 45 people" or the exact number? I'm struggling to find some way of doing this which could…
“But in Sprint Planning round 4 you told me the API is ready” responds the PO sternly. “Sprint ends tomorrow. I gave you the story. You committed to the goal. Them’s the rules.”
“Ok, Ok. Tell you what, I’ll make something work and we’ll write a follow up story to make this right. Does that please you, mighty Owner of Product?”
Is this legal?
The better remedy is precisely what is occurring: someone calls the Emperor's bluff, and we all get on HN and engage in cheeky humor.
“As a desperate guy trying to save his marriage with a last-minute holiday, I want to know just how many other lost souls I am competing with, so I loose what little dignity I have left”
So some manager came up with this, tasked a PO, who tasked a team, and a frontend developer implemented it - and in this chain, in the end, everyone complied. I know it's not like murder, but especially in a field where it's so easy to hop into another job/project, one should have greater integrity.
You don't like what's going on at work, find another job.
I want to add Hanlon's razor to this. Some are pointing straight to malice and intentional misleading. It wouldn’t surprise me if they wanted to make it genuinely work originally, but realised they could save a lot of money, resources and sprints just faking it in js. More laziness and “oh shit this project was bigger than we thought let’s find a shortcut” than outright malice.