Those arguing that the client does not need to share their share of the blame, are implying basically that the client is not capable of assuming the contracts that they signed.
It is quite a patronizing position but often very common.
I wanted to actually have a chance to read his comment and judge for myself if things are really as you state they are.
But wouldn't you know it: it was deleted.
HN mods basically are allowed to erase history and claim whatever. You know who does that? Totalitarian regimes like those in China or NKorea!
@Dang, you need to at least present some credentials so you know what validates your intellectual reasoning. Until then, HN is basically a Red Hen restaurant.
Then you are arguing that the law that is currently in effect, and which was voted and upheld with Democrat's help, is a "gross violation of human rights."
Maybe you should also petition and push for help on the Democrat side instead of just pointing the finger across the isle.
It is a valid point. But his skepticism is still warranted. Theranos was also masquerading as very scientific and was full of laurels. No difference!
The undercurrent is this: "do not dare to express doubts on this African-based invention, because otherwise you are a racist."
That's why I objected to the "harsh" tone. It is an application of PC thinking.
Did not catch it but where you one of the guys pointing out how wrong Theranos seemed to be?
No? Then you are just virtue signaling in a SJW kind of way.
What's wrong with him expressing his skepticism?!
And what makes you entitled to express harsh opinions?!
Theranos was also looking at only tiny amounts of blood drawn from a finger prick. And everyone was on that bandwagon, as you are now. And telling the others to shut-up and not dare to "wrong-think".