Hello. I would like to know if the dealer made an error in my favor and if I am now entitled to an additional $1,250 from the manufacturer. Any input would be sincerely appreciated. Background: I recently financed a Toyota 86 through a local dealer in NJ - a few days after the deal was done, I receive a couple of emails from the finance manager - it seems that they "inadvertently forgot to have us [my cosigner and I] sign a form related to the Customer Cash Rebate," and asked if we would kindly sign the backdated form and send it right back. Sure thing... I read what they wanted me to sign and it stated "I, the customer, assign the cash incentive to my Dealer with whom I independently negotiated application of the Cash Incentive to the purchase or lease of my vehicle. I release Txxxxx Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. ... from any further claim or obligation for payment to me of the Cash Incentive for the vehicle." On the copy of the lease agreement, there is a line that only reads "Rebate - $1,250," it does not specify what the rebate is or give any other details about the rebate. It sounds to me like they messed up and want me to sign over the rights to my cash rebate, right? If so, what would be the best way for me to go around claiming that rebate - should I just contact the manufacturer directly? Thank you! Edit Thanks, all. Signing the form and sending it back after learning more about the process. Edit 2 ITT: butthurt car salesmen, lol. So quick to jump on getting extra money from a customer. Not so keen on it when it's possibly done back. Hypocrites Edit 3 It's okay to nickel and dime a customer and try to get every last dollar you can, but totally not okay when a customer tries to do the same thing? Grow the fuck up and welcome to the real world. You snowflakes will be just fine.
2019.08.26 07:20 BonnieJH4Boyfriend masturbating over porn, friends and his exes.. Gets caught. Lies. Then half assed proposal to fix it all??
Please don't just suggest we break up. I'm looking for the words of people who have been on either side of what I've been through who can offer up some thoughts... TIA. So this started with my boyfriend would get up half hour early before work just so he could masturbate to porn (instead of be sexual with me) I didn't mind so much, in fact it kinda turned me on, but then three things happened 1. He couldn't keep / stay erect for me and our sex life took a massive hit. 2. He started lying about it (with ease to my face), even going as far as to download fake (hidden photo vault) apps to conseal porn. He would deny looking even when his browser history showed he had been.. 3. This turned into masturbating over actual friends, local women and ex girlfriends not just porn.. He has reactivated an old website that's for sex chat/meet ups and well he doesn't know I know about that but it shows activity of when you like, friend, follow, share pics/video/blog/status etc. It shows in the last 2 weeks he's following lots of local women.. - I can't tell him I know about this site without admitting to snooping! I know bad me. Over the last 6 or so months we have had disputes over him liking pics of friends / exes in swimsuits, underwear, skimpy.. Tight.. Yeah...... Public photos. He has swore to me they are just friends, promised he doesn't see them like that.. I don't mine him looking at porn but he even promised he doesn't even look at porn anymore because I am all he needs and wants. Told me I have nothing to worry about.. Each time I have got 'ok' with it all. But then I found he's using VPN's and hidden vault apps to save not hundreds but thousands of porn images! Pics of his exes and friends... I my self admit I like porn, through out most of our relationship we have shared and watcjed porn together so when he stopped watching and looking becausw I was all he needed, what he actually meant was he just didn't want the porn stuff with me anymore of which he has sworn he isn't watching porn, not interested, his ED has nothing to do wirh porn, he legit needs to use the bathroom 3-5 times a day for 20-50 minutes a time... Anyway he let me use his phone as the camera on his was better for photographing selling stuff. When this app popped up saying the new updates are ready. I was able to log onto this and there's pics of women and some of his ex and friends. I asked him about it, he deleted the app and insisted there was no app and I was making ir all up. Of course this turned into our first fight; him easily lying to my face. I kicked him our, he cried and we talked about things. Eventually he admitted he saved the pics bur never looked at them, he didn't know why he saved them and he promised he wouldn't do it again. He spent a few days being really clingy, he was sorry and he's stupid and only wants me. We worked on trust and for about 2 months things have been amazing we have been very open, trusting and even watching porn together like we use too. He gave me no reason to question anything until this last week or so he's struggling with ED again which in the past it has been when he was hiding stuff on his phone. He suggested he's stressed with work and that's the reason. Then last week he went to the toilet for the first time in a few weeks (he has twken to waking me for sex but not so much this day) at 5am he was in there for over an hour while I pretended to be asleep. Eventually he came our, put his phone on the bed and woke me up asking if I want coffee. While he's making said coffee he asks me what the time is, I grabbed the first phone, his, and on screen were around 50 photos of sexting photos of his ex. Mostly pics of her naked, with her legs open, playing... Also some include toys he has recently been suggesting I get!! This is his ex of 10 years ago who sent him these pics 10 years ago!! Along side those are a bunch of "just friends" swimsuit, underwear etc pics and other exes saved among porn - soft porn (mostly just naked women).. Non of my pics. Thousands of pics!! So I confronted him about it. First I was in trouble for going through his phone, then he said how his phone has backdated and downloaded old stuff (not possible), then he said I had downloaded this stuff and put it on his phone, then when I said how he would have had to redownload this app and manually move photos there, after manually downloading them and moving them and.... Then he deleted it all and then claimed I was adding to it and fabricating to be dramatic, that there was no pics of his friends.. Then he admitted to porn and hiding it because he didn't want people going through his pics 1. Only I have access other than him and 2. My sexual pics and our sex pics are not hidden at all. Anyways.. He left for work on a promise we would talk.. While at work he admitted to downloading and masturbating over the pics of his exes and his friends and he doesn't know why he did it but its only been once which was today that he masturbated and that he's only had the pics this last few days (his ED has been a huge flair up this week!) he admitted he downloaded her pics from an old email he has now deleted (only he hasn't and there many more - Yes I snooped). We talked things through and he was open and honest which I really appreciated, but he had lied to my face earlier that day and multiple times! And very easily! He's now broken promised and lied to me..! The only thing I've ever asked is for honesty.. Is that too much to ask? - He said he would delete these women (his idea) and despite he has sworn this several times over he still hasn't and irs how been over a week!! He is now defending why he won't delete some of them but making zero effort to delete any despite it was the turning point. Him admitting he has a problem and these women being blocked would help him and now...... After 3 or 4 days of long talks, him crying and scared of losing me, him admitting he has a problem (as said) he also said he will try stop his porn addiction, pay me more attention and we are going to get professional help. He has been amazing and seems he has kept to his word. (except for deleting these women) But 3 things are major bothering me. 1. He offered to delete these women, but now he's making excuses as to why he won't delete them so now it seems irs just something he promised he would do to try and patch the situation but had no intent to delete them? Made worse by the ex of 10 years ago has now magically started adding him to social media, commenting on his old content, private messaging him.. And while he hasn't replied to her, that I know of, it seems suspicious how suddenly shes around and back in touch, he has accepted her friend requests / followed her back which is total opposite of unfriending these other girls. It bothers me. 2. This last few days he's been really soppy and romantic inc multiple dates, buying me dinner / take out / cooking for me. He's been really attentive and sexual and open and talks more. Irs been nice to have that time before work to spend time together doing puzzles and such. Then on Friday during sex he asks me to marry him! I stopped pointed out how inappropriate it is to ask me during sex (he knows the answer) I ask if he was serious and he said he has never been more serious about anything, how much he loves me, how he doesn't want to lose me and other nice things.. So I said if I say yes does that mean we're engaged for real? He said yes and again asked me to marry him. I said yes, we finished sex and got ready for our cinema date. After / the rest of the weekend whenever I've brought up rings they've been too expensive (one was £200!) he hasn't wanted to look at rings. His idea of our wedding is to elope and get a piece of paper and have a nice holiday but he doesn't wona talk about that either. And the rest of the weekend all the lovey dovey niceness from this week has somewhat faded / stopped and tonight seems he's just not interested in me at all because he's tired from doing nothing all weekend in fact he got angry with me when I suggested sex.. :/ he said he's just tired. 3. I feel paranoid all that's happened. He's still friends and defending why he should remain friends with these people he doesn't talk too - it was HIS idea, I never asked him to but now it bothers me he won't. I feel I swallowed it hook, line and sinker!! How he told me he has deleted all these photos but I noticed on his browser history (when he was next to me and searching for something) he's now using Dropbox and I can't help but be paranoid about it all.. Plus then this proposal during sex which now I feel was something to say to stop having sex? To distract me? To try and fix things? But now seems disinterested in that idea?! So I was super bad - I jumped on his phone as for the first time in months he left it on the bed when he fell asleep.. There's seemingly no pics, no Facebook, Instagram or twitter history.. His ex has messaged him but he hasn't replied on Instagram or Facebook. No emails. Dropbox is password I don't know. His Google activity shows he is mostly using incognito when he's on his phone. App store doesn't show any new apps or recently deleted apps except for a new vpn last used tonight before bed..!! He has no pics, which is no pics of anything not even me and my pics!! I snooped through his emails and he has saved hundreds for around 9 years ago all of her toying, playing, posing etc.. I don't know what to do. Seems he hasn't been on that website I mentioned earlier.. And I know I shouldn't snoop but it's making me ill not knowing and distrusting and he says he will build my trust but now seems after a few days he seems to think he doesn't need to try any more and it's like it all never happened. I don't know.. Thoughts? Bonnie x
2019.07.08 20:28 honeybadger808All the Jony Ive Drama: Explained
A week ago, the Wall Street Journal published an article that alleged a high level of disfunction in Apple's design department, from Tim Cook's relationship with Jony Ive, to how Jony Ive ran — or didn't run — the design organization, and how all of that led to Jony's departure. The following evening, Tim Cook emailed NBC to call the story absurd, distorted, and not recognizable as the company it claimed to describe. Rather watch than listen? Hit play on the video above. And, ever since, we've seen so many tea quotes, hot takes, sides taken, and… It's exhausting. I'm exhausted and I do this for a living. I can't even imagine how tired and over it you all now. But, we haven't seen any real progress either. The Wall Street Journal is sticking by its story, and a week later, is continuing to promote it with blurbs like "Why hasn't Apple had a hit product in years? A look at the internal drama around the departure of its design chief helps explain". For their part, Apple hasn't elaborated any further. Nilay Patel from the Verge has said he thinks every word of the piece is true and well reported, even if he doesn't think change is bad. Matthew Panzarino of TechCrunch said bits and pieces in the various stories over the past few days that are not, as he understands them, accurate, or represented in an accurate context. And, of course, since this is the internet, People who delighted in the account have been labeled as haters and those who recoiled at it, dismissed as apologists. But neither the original Journal story nor Cook's retort provided enough context to reconcile those two radically different points of view. So, rather than punish the world with yet another tea spill or hot take, I'm going to try something different. A cool take. That's right, as an opportunity to share information. And, hopefully, insight.
From the Wall Street Journal: As the deadline loomed for the 10th anniversary iPhone, Apple Inc.'s top software designers gathered in the penthouse of an exclusive San Francisco club called The Battery. Apple, like other companies, routinely holds offsites. They're meant to get teams together, outside the distractions of the main offices, to focus on specific projects — everything from brainstorming ideas to setting deliverables to presenting to executives. Sometimes they're held nearby in South Bay. Sometimes in the city. Sometimes much further away. Jony Ive lived in SF. So did a lot of the designers. They had been summoned some 50 miles from the company's Cupertino, Calif., headquarters to demonstrate planned features of the product to Jony Ive, Apple's design chief, who seldom came to the office anymore from his San Francisco home. Steve Jobs used to work with Jony Ive on industrial design and Scott Forstall on iOS software, which included Greg Christie's human interface team. When Steve passed away, Jony couldn't work with Scott Forstall. So, long story short, Scott ended up leaving and Jony ended up taking over design responsibility for software as well. That included iOS 7, which was a complete redesign turned around in 9 months, less time than most incremental updates, but also on Apple Watch, an all-new product that Jony threw himself into to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. When the Watch finally shipped, something had to change. Managing the much larger human interface team was a lot more work than collaborating with the much smaller industrial design team, and traveling back and forth from Pacifica to Cupertino each day had become increasingly frustrating given the increased demands on his time. Not having to deal with the day-to-day management of the new unified design team, and not having to go back and forth to Infinite Loop, especially as he shifted to working on Apple Park and Apple Retail, were seen as ways to give Ive back some of his own design time. For nearly three hours on that afternoon in January 2017, the group of about 20 designers stood around waiting for Mr. Ive to show, according to people familiar with the episode. After he arrived and listened to the presentations, he left without ruling on their key questions, leaving attendees frustrated. There were certainly big decisions to be made for iPhone X, like would it use a digital home button on the bottom of the screen for familiarity's sake, or would it risk an entirely new, gesture-based navigation system? But it's hard to tell what to make of this story. Why arrive three hours late rather than not go at all, why listen to the presentations and not provide feedback rather than not listen at all? The episode was emblematic of a widening disconnect at the top of Apple that, invisible outside the company, was eroding the product magic created by Mr. Ive and the late Steve Jobs that helped turn Apple into America's pre-eminent corporation. The episode, if accurate, talks about how Ive interacted with his human interface team but doesn't reference the top of Apple at all. And I say "if accurate" because TechCrunch's Matthew Panzarino said: But the more important point is that no one I know felt that Jony had checked out or abandoned the team. For what it's worth, no one I know felt that way either. As to the product magic of Ive and Jobs, they certainly collaborated on a staggering number of iconic products, from the iMac to the iBook, the iPod, iPhone and iPad, the Titanium Powerbook to the wedge-shaped MacBook Air… Also, some misses like the G4 Cube, iPod Hi-Fi, fatty nano, buttonless shuffle, the iPhone 4 antenna, and basically every mouse ever. But Steve Jobs died in 2011. That's not an erosion. That's an ending… Everything Jony and Apple have done since, both magic and tragic, have been the result of something new and different.
Few on the outside knew that for years, Mr. Ive had been growing more distant from Apple's leadership, say people close to the company. Mr. Jobs's protégé—and Apple's closest thing to a living embodiment of his spirit—grew frustrated inside a more operations-focused company led by Chief Executive Tim Cook. Ive was Apple's leadership. Jobs had a few proteges, in a way one for each facet of his intense interests. Ive for hardware design. Scott Forstall for software. Tim Cook for Apple itself as a product. Jobs was the glue that had held them all together but, post-Jobs, they had to all find their own relationships. And operations were always a function of design at Apple. Like we went over in the show last week with former Apple designer May-Li, you can't separate the two. You can't just make a drawing or CNC a part and expect a hundred million of them to just manufacture themselves. As she said: People do not realize machines had to be invented and molecules had to be rearranged in order to support a great design. When materials were hard to come by or changed at the last minute, or yields weren't as high as they needed to be, operations is what made sure they still shipped in days or weeks rather than weeks or months. Look no further than the delays we've seen with some products, even after announcements, over the last few years. If anything, there's been a need for more operations-focus at the company. Steve Jobs made sure Jony and design had almost unlimited power at Apple. You can see it in iOS 7. In the 18K gold Apple Watch. In the Designed by Apple in California book. But even then, operations is what enabled that gold watch and those printed pages to ship. Same as they had during the Jobs era with products like the iPhone and iPad. Mr. Ive, 52, withdrew from routine management of Apple's elite design team, leaving it rudderless, increasingly inefficient, and ultimately weakened by a string of departures, people close to the company say. Before he passed away in 2011, Steve Jobs — the man who usually made every decision about everything he cared about at Apple — went on several medical leaves. During those times, he stayed as involved as he could, but he also trusted people he trusted to make those decisions when he couldn't. People like Cook, Ive, and Forestall. Even when he was there, Jobs trusted people like Phil Schiller and Eddy Cue enough to let them do things he himself was initially against, like put iTunes and Safari on Windows and make the iPad mini. Part of Apple's culture, the part that mitigates them against ever being rudderless, is having people responsible for everything important. People who might want and value sign-offs when they can get them but who know how to ship without them when and if they have to as well. That's why, when Ive withdrew from routine management, he left them intentionally ruddered with new Vice Presidents. Industrial design with longtime team member Richard Howarth, and human interface with Alan Dye, who Ive had brought over from the graphic design group to spearhead the new look of iOS 7, irking a lot of feathers along with way. One look at how many versions of iOS, watchOS, and versions of iPhone, iPad, and more recently even Mac that have shipped during the last few years shows that that culture is still alive and well.
The internal drama explains a lot about Apple's dilemma. Its one major new product of the post-Jobs era, the Apple Watch, made its debut five years ago. I'm not sure what drama is explaining what dilemma. Apple is a profoundly different company than it was a decade ago. One of the other things Steve Jobs did before he passed away was recruiting chipmakers into Apple, including Johny Srouji. So, over the last ten years, we've gone from Macs using commodity components distinguished from commodity PCs by their hardware and software aesthetics alone, to iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, and more, that run almost entirely on custom components. John Gruber and Ben Thompson spoke about that at length last week, link in the description. What didn't change so much is Apple's cadence when it comes to major new products. The iMac debuted in 1993. It wasn't a new category but a modern re-interpretation of the all-in-one Steve Jobs introduced back in 1984. After, sure, first introducing the Lisa in 1983. The iPod debuted in 2001, 17 years after the Mac and 8 years after the iMac. The iPhone and iPad, which both spun out of Project Experience Purple, debuted in 2007 and 2010, some 6 and 9 years after the iPod. The post-Jobs era started in 2011. The Apple Watch debuted in 2015 and shipped in 2016, roughly 8 and 5 years after the iPhone and iPad respectively. AirPods debuted in 2016, around a year after the Apple Watch. The HomePod debuted in 2017, about a year later. And we can certainly argue it's major-ness but it is a category Apple was accused of completely missing out on up until the moment of its launch. Then there's Apple's augmented reality glasses, which rumor has it will debut sometime next year or the year after. Their automotive efforts, if they don't ultimately choose to shelve it like they did the television set, sometime after that. You could include the 1999 iBook, which rejuvenated Apple's laptops, and 2008 MacBook Air, which redefined all modern laptops, in the Jobs-era list, and the 2019 Pro Display XRD, which seeks to redefine the reference monitor, in the post-Jobs list, maybe the 2015 Apple Pencil as well. If we go beyond atoms and include packets, there's Apple Music, Apple News, and Apple Arcade and Apple TV+ on the horizon. Like in the Jobs years, there were misses as well. HomePod, I just mentioned. The butterfly keyboards, obviously. The 2013 Mac Pro. The years without Mac updates. Still every mouse ever. I'm not sure speed between major products is the best measure, but for the sake of context and how Apple fits into the industry at large, I can't think of many or any other company that's managed to put together a string of products with bigger cultural impact over as long period of time. Its iPhone business is faltering, and more recent releases like its wireless AirPods haven't been enough to shore up falling sales. It hasn't had a megahit new product since the iPad that started selling in 2010. The Apple Watch, released in 2016, had the second biggest acceleration of any product in Apple history, behind only the iPad. AirPods may not retail at a high enough price to move the revenue needle as much, but they've been so successful they've become a meme, and like the iPod and iPhone before them, they're shaping the next generation of products in their category. Taken together, Apple has said the revenue for wearables is already 50 percent more than iPod was at its peak. I know that's not iPhone money but, really, nothing is. Take away the massive distortion and seemingly mass confusion of one of the most profitable products in history, and you see Apple's other businesses are really pretty damn good businesses. Yet his departure from the company cements the triumph of operations over design at Apple, a fundamental shift from a business driven by hardware wizardry to one focused on maintaining profit margins and leveraging Apple's past hardware success to sell software and services. There's a story from 2010, when Apple introduced the iPad. It went like this — Only Steve and Jony could make the iPad. Only Tim could figure out how to sell it for $500. Again, I'll refer everyone back to last week's show with May-Li, who worked on the original iPhone and other projects after Steve had passed away, for a first-hand account of how operations has always supported design at Apple. Because it had to.
Happiness at Home
Mr. Cook, an industrial engineer who made his name perfecting Apple's supply chain, sought to keep Mr. Ive happy over the years, but people in the design studio rarely saw Mr. Cook, who they say showed little interest in the product development process—a fact that dispirited Mr. Ive. It's interesting to read about disconnects at the top, drama, and dilemmas, and Tim Cook trying to keep Jony Ive happy over the years. And there certainly must have been something terrifying and energizing knowing Jobs would be coming to the ID studio for his regular check-in, everyone racing to get everything ready to show him. But, to the surprise of absolutely no one, Cook isn't Jobs any more than Ive is Cook. Something they all knew and appreciated deeply. Which is why Apple had them both. That said, it is fun to watch the reactions when Cook pauses to describe the intricacies of a staircase at an Apple Store, or grabs an iPad Pro from someone in marketing to give a full-on demo to a special guest in the hands-on area. Almost as though what he apparently lacks in attention to design he makes up for in attention to design. Mr. Ive grew frustrated as Apple's board became increasingly populated by directors with backgrounds in finance and operations rather than technology or other areas of the company's core business, said people close to him and to the company. Arthur Levinson of Genentech, Ronald Sugar of Northrop Grumman, Andrea Jung formerly of Avon, now Grameen American, and Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States, joined the board during the Jobs era and remain on it today. As does Tim Cook who joined just before Jobs passed away. Robert Iger of Disney joined a very short time later. Since then, Bill Campbell of Intuit retired in 2014 and Millard Drexler of J Crew in 2015. Apple did replace their software and retail experience with two new, finance-centric directors in James Bell of Boeing and Susan Wagner of Blackrock, But it was also after a series of controversies from no-poaching agreements to stock backdating, and a period of rapid financial activity, including a 7 to 1 stock split in 2014 and the launch of a massive repurchasing and dividend program. The country's most valuable company for years, Apple recently ceded top status to Microsoft Corp., and its stock remains 15% below its record high in October. Apple's stock is 15% below its record high… which was just 8 months ago. Not back during the Steve Jobs era or when the iPad launched or before Jony went off to work on Apple Park… But while Apple was rudderless, filled with drama, and in the midst of a dilemma? A person who worked closely with Mr. Ive for many years said Apple employees who were "newer see [that], 'Oh wow, Jony has gone away a bit,' but I don't look at it as him being distant." After many product releases over the years, including the iMac and iPhone, this person said Mr. Ive took time to recharge, adding that the company tried to create a different model where the designer could work remotely more often. "The reality was he worked just as hard and got just as tired." This better matches what I and other people who cover Apple closely have heard. It would have been great to hear more of this perspective throughout.
Mr. Ive was devastated by Mr. Jobs's death. The studio's cadence slowed. The former goes without saying. The latter is hard to reconcile. Even if we leave out all the software, including the massive iOS 7 redesign and the launch of watchOS, tvOS, and just now, iPadOS, and focus only on the industrial design side, that still leaves the Apple Watch, the original iPad Pro and Apple Pencil, the new Apple TV, iPhone 5, iPhone Plus models, AirPods, HomePods, iPhone X, the 2015 MacBook, 2016 MacBook Pro, 2018 MacBook Air, the 2018 iPad Pro and Apple Pencil, and the new Mac Pro and Pro Display. If anything, the scale and cadence have only escalated over the last 8 years. Mr. Ive had begun pushing to make a watch. He was intrigued by the potential to further miniaturize the iPhone's powerful technology into a wearable device. Some executives pushed back, questioning if a device so small could ever have a killer app that would compel people to buy it. This is how product development works at Apple. There were two purple projects, P1, an iPod phone led by Tony Fadell and P2, an OS X phone led by Scott Forstall. P1 never shipped. P2 became the iPhone. Steve Jobs didn't believe in the iPad mini. Eddy Cue fought for it and eventually Steve relented and said they'd do it, but it was on Eddy if it failed. Like May-Li attested to last week, a thousand nos for every yes isn't make believe. Everything is considered and reconsidered, factored and refactored. If no one had pushed back it literally wouldn't have been Apple. He disagreed over how to position the Watch with some Apple leaders, who wanted to sell it as an extension of the iPhone. Mr. Ive saw it as a fashion accessory. The result was a compromise. The watch was electronically tethered to the iPhone, and started at $349. Apple also created a $17,000 gold version and partnered with Hermès. Here's a thunker — What could the first few couple of Apple Watches have done if they weren't paired with iPhones? Not even tell time in the precise Mickey-foot-tapping way they were designed to do. Like early iPods and iPhones that had to sync with a PC to do much of anything, the Apple Watch was just too highly constrained to handle even basic computing functions on its own. And it's safe to say everyone knew it. There were disagreements about which specific features it should and shouldn't ship with, and frankly, there probably should have been more given the lack of focus of the first generation, but again, it's the kind of arguments we all want people inside Apple to have. The fashion aspect, though, is what got the Apple Watch attention beyond just the computer industry and early adopters. It was different than iPod fashion, which tweaked colors and designs at the low end almost every holiday shopping season. It was high-end fashion. Something that got fashion press to the events and got Apple Watch into Vogue and other fashion magazines, and onto the wrists of celebrities. The gold Apple Watch was quickly retired but the Hermes one persists to this day — as does the Nike one. Because, as we've seen over the last few years, it's the fitness and now the health features that have given it that clarity of purpose.
Mr. Ive told Mr. Cook he wanted to step back from day-to-day management responsibilities. The staff beneath him had ballooned to hundreds of people. He didn't want to leave, but wanted time and space to think, he told several people. This, again, resonates with me, and is in line with what I've also heard, but again this simple rationality just doesn't get as much ink as the insinuations of drama. It's easy to look back and say that, following the death of Steve Jobs, Jony Ive leaving Apple was inevitable. But, does that mean Apple has spent the last 8 years carefully planning and managing that departure, or has everyone involved spent that time doing everything they could to try and stave off that inevitability? Ahead of one design week in 2016, Johnnie Manzari, who was in charge of Apple's camera app, stood before more than a dozen 11-inch-by-17-inch images of changes he planned to pitch when word trickled through the studio that Mr. Ive wasn't going to come. "What am I going to do now?" Mr. Manzari said. It's weird to see a non-executive name-dropped in an article like this. As far as I can recall or Google, Manzari has only ever been in the press once before, when he joined Phil Schiller to talk about Portrait Lighting with Buzzfeed in 2017. When I do see something like this, it always feels dirty, like some servicing of agenda or settling of accounts. Otherwise, why grant everyone else anonymity but not this one fairly obscure person? Who gains from that and what do they gain, exactly? Also, according to people directly familiar with the matter, this anecdote is completely false anyway, which only makes it curiouser. I'm going to skip ahead here, otherwise this will end up being as long as my Catalina video and no one wants that. The Journal ends on this: Mr. Ive's old design team—a group of aesthetes once thought of as gods inside Apple—will report to COO Jeff Williams, a mechanical engineer with an M.B.A. Jony's old design team reports to Evans Hankey, a long time member of the team who, according to everyone I've ever spoken with, and to quote May-Li from last week's show, gets stuff done. In other words, she's a force of nature. Evans reports to Jeff Williams just like, before Jony's brief return to day-to-day management, she and before her Richard Howarth, and before and between them, technically Jony himself, reported to Tim Cook, an industrial engineer with an M.B.A. But, with Sabih Khan now taking over as senior Vice President of operations at Apple, it's best to think of Jeff Williams being more like what Tim Cook became to Steve Jobs — a complement. In this case, someone to run product, at least for now, who knows, as we begin the era at least partially after Jony Ive.
This is Tim
Now, Tim Cook's response to the Wall Street Journal article pulled no punches. From Dan Byers: "The story is absurd. A lot of the reporting, and certainly the conclusions, just don't match with reality." "At a base level, it shows a lack of understanding about how the design team works and how Apple works. It distorts relationships, decisions and events to the point that we just don't recognize the company it claims to describe." "The design team is phenomenally talented,. As Jony has said, they're stronger than ever, and I have complete confidence that they will thrive under Jeff, Evans and Alan's leadership. We know the truth, and we know the incredible things they're capable of doing. The projects they're working on will blow you away." It's incredibly rare for Tim Cook to so publicly rebut a story. Most of the time, when faced with what they consider to be negative, even false press, they'll typically just stay quiet and take it. Anything less, to them, is punching down. And that's usually a good strategy. Wait a day and another sensational story will come up and our ever-shortening attention spans will spin around and take momentary distraction in that instead. When Apple or Tim Cook do speak out, it keeps the story going in the news cycle and it ups the stakes considerably by putting Tim Cook's name, reputation, and credibility on the line. The last time Apple responded this forcefully was when Bloomberg published its Big Hack story claiming Apple, Amazon and many other companies were running servers that had been compromised at a hardware level by Chinese Intelligence. Bloomberg has stuck by that story even as independent audits have come back showing no evidence or support for it at all. But why do it in this case? I think many people probably read the Journal story as a hit piece. On the eve of Jony Ive leaving Apple, after 30 years of service, 30 years that reshaped not just Apple but the entire industry, they read it as an effort by a few frustrated, thirty, disenfranchised individuals to paint Ive as having abandoned his peers and his team, and as a consequence having failed to keep the magic or success of Steve Jobs alive. And, for many in the company, that's not only ridiculous but reprehensible. They're not allowed to speak publicly on Apple's behalf. But Tim Cook certainly can. And by sending that email, rather than this story simply becoming accepted as fact and woven into urban legend, they make sure that email dogs it with every reference and in every b-roll, every time it gets regurgitated now and into the future. Whether you ultimately choose to believe the Journal's account or Cook's, or you recognize that simple narratives seldom if ever capture the true complexity of human relationships, is of course entirely up to you. But I'd love to know what you think now, at the end of all of this. So, hit up the comments and give me your coldest of cold takes.
2019.05.22 23:51 creatively_fuckedI'm A Writer Whose Creative Work Is Being Stolen, PLEASE HELP!!!
Throwaway account, TLDR below. Reddit please, please I really need your help. This is complicated but I am desperate and in an extremely bad place mentally and I don't know what to do. A company - let's call them SATAN INC - approached me several months ago. The service they offered was to pair people who wanted biographies written for them with pro writers. Simple enough. They asked if I'd like to join and because I speak a rare language I was paired with a woman a few months later on a project. She spoke little English and my native tongue. The contract I signed I fear has damned me to hell. It said that I would interview her for X hours then write a book of X words for X amount. I knew my rights were being waived away as I did read it but was not worried because it said my client - the woman I was working with - would own the rights in full, and she said she would like to work with me in the future (without said company). I thought it was just a memento keepsake, and since the company never claimed to be a publisher I didn't think anything of it. This same piece of shit contract also says: 1) I can not say anything bad about said company 2) I can not mention the existence of the contract 3) that I indemnify and hold harmless the Client and its End-Customers for any damage as a result of a breach of this contract 4) I am not to use this work in a portfolio 5) I am not to be paid a dime until deliverable of the final draft 6) I can not work with my client independently of the company for 6 months following completion of the project I spoke with the client who assured me and the company my name would be allowed on the work and I would be allowed to use it in my portfolio. Her contract EXPLICITLY stated SATAN INC WOULD NOT ACT AS A PUBLISHER. The "agent" - let's call her CUNTINA - gives me a schedule for deliverables that I follow. However the story word count ends up exceeding the original amount by quite a bit. As such - nearly a month has passed while Client and SATAN INC dispute final word count. During this time my bank account slides into the negative...I dip into and use most of my savings. During this time I receive many calls from my panicked client who is concerned a bit of fraud may be going on. Despite my client being assured she would have total ownership of the book she sees SATAN INC listed under the copyright that CUNTINA sends in a draft. My client contacts the company to probe. One person feigns innocence while another argues with my client stating she misunderstood "because of her poor English" (which is really not that bad) and SATAN INC owned half the copyright. Naturally my Client panics. She contacts the person who referred her to the company, let's call her KATIE. Katie gets paranoid and fishes around and lo and behold, despite being assured she owned full copyright her work was being sold at Walmart and the like. She was not aware of it nor getting a dime from it - even though SATAN INC was the ONLY person who had access to it. She went back and saw SATAN INC was co-listed on the copyright with her. My Client is reassured by SATAN INC this will not happen to her...I continue to wait, nearly 100+ hours of unpaid work and months later. The client calls day and night, and tells me that SATAN INC is billing her some $200+ per call, not a penny of which I am privy to or is outlined in either of our contracts. When final edits arrive they are handwritten and the client wants to hop on the phone to talk through them. I ask SATAN INC if they can allow me to send a backdated invoice so I could be paid now rather than met 30 after the final draft is completed as I could not afford to take time off to do these edits with my bank in the negative. I also ask them to update me on pay as the work I delivered was considerably more than outlined in the initial agreement. They tell me "let us get back to you on that". The client calls shortly after and BEGS me not to disclose it but the company told her they were planning on taking my name off the book and finding a new writer to take over my project. What can I do? Please please help - I wish I could pay for a lawyer but now am scared beyond belief I won't even get paid and my work is being stolen out from underneath me. Does their illegal behavior violate the contract I signed, and if so would ownership of the work go back to me? Please please someone help I beg you. TLDR: Company hires me to interview a refugee and write her book. Company freaks client out as she discovers they are engaged in fraud like practices and have ripped off previous clients. When I demanded info on when I would get paid they threatened to get a new writer for the project to steal my creative work out from underneath me.
Agreement ends all ongoing litigation, including with Apple’s contract manufacturers Companies have reached a global patent license agreement and a chipset supply agreement San Diego and Cupertino, California — Qualcomm and Apple today announced an agreement to dismiss all litigation between the two companies worldwide. The settlement includes a payment from Apple to Qualcomm. The companies also have reached a six-year license agreement, effective as of April 1, 2019, including a two-year option to extend, and a multiyear chipset supply agreement. Apple revolutionized personal technology with the introduction of the Macintosh in 1984. Today, Apple leads the world in innovation with iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch and Apple TV. Apple’s four software platforms — iOS, macOS, watchOS and tvOS — provide seamless experiences across all Apple devices and empower people with breakthrough services including the App Store, Apple Music, Apple Pay and iCloud. Apple’s more than 100,000 employees are dedicated to making the best products on earth, and to leaving the world better than we found it. Qualcomm invents breakthrough technologies that transform how the world connects, computes and communicates. When we connected the phone to the Internet, the mobile revolution was born. Today, our inventions are the foundation for life-changing products, experiences, and industries. As we lead the world to 5G, we envision this next big change in cellular technology spurring a new era of intelligent, connected devices and enabling new opportunities in connected cars, remote delivery of health care services, and the IoT — including smart cities, smart homes, and wearables. Qualcomm Incorporated includes our licensing business, QTL, and the vast majority of our patent portfolio. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Qualcomm Incorporated, operates, along with its subsidiaries, all of our engineering, research and development functions, and all of our products and services businesses, including, the QCT semiconductor business. For more information, visit Qualcomm’s website, OnQ blog, Twitter and Facebook pages.
I hope we get Qualcomm chips back in the iPhones/ipads etc and get 5G for 2020. IMO, Intel sucks. Notice how the deal is backdated from April 1st, 2019. They could have said May or some futuristic day. It would be funny if we start seeing Qualcomm iPhone X, XR, XS, XS Max return to shelves ASAP.
" The companies also have reached a six-year license agreement, effective as of April 1, 2019, including a two-year option to extend, and a multiyear chipset supply agreement. "
2018.09.18 20:13 worldcoinsmedallics(WTS) China Silver Lunar year 2016 Monkey color enameled w/ COA and box
From China Gold Coin Inc is their popular enameled lunar coins. These are very beautiful in person! This is a backdated one from 2016 when it was the year of the monkey! Asking $110 Paypal G&S. Happy hunting everyone! See Photos here
This thread serves two purposes: 1) To collect and make visible new posts in smaller Toronto based subreddits. Feel free to visit, comment and be generally helpful in posts indexed below. Please also remember to stay on your best behaviour when travelling outside of /toronto. 2) To act as a general off-topic conversation hub for the day. To that end, use this thread to talk about whatever is on your mind, regardless of whether or not it's related to Toronto. No matter where you're posting, please remember to be excellent to each other.
2017.09.23 00:54 lonelyfatoldsickgirlMy broker (Q-Trade) doesn't seem to offer RDSP's, who should I consider (or not consider) for my RDSP?
The options, according to the Government of Canada website for RDSP's are (see below). And I'm either not familiar with any of these, or are not overly happy about having to deal with some of them due to reasons I don't really know why. I'm hoping others can chime in with their experiences to help get me on the right track. I have until the end of this year to file so I can get backdated ten years. Financial Organizations The following financial organizations offer the RDSP, the Grant and the Bond: ATB Securities Inc. Bank of Montreal Bank of Nova Scotia Central 1 Credit Union Central 1 Trust Company Community Trust Company CIBC Desjardins Investors Group Trust Co. Ltd. Fonds d'investissements FMOQ inc. (French only) Mackenzie Financial Corporation RBC Royal Bank TD Waterhouse Canada Inc. Natcan Trust Company
2017.09.19 19:20 albatzDon't understand how does this malware works
Hello, Reddit. We found out today that someone hacked our sites(>10) on shared-hosting service. We have no idea with what purpose. There are some site folders with 755 chmod. And also there are some inconspicuous files with completely unsuspected names (search.php, inc.php, etc). (Important: some files have backdating timestamp and usually saved with 600 chmod in public_html). In several projects with Yi2 malware was unable to pass through the public_html due to lack of suitable folders. So, it's clear that malware is trying to find any folder with 755 chmod and then upload into this folder. But how? Via FTP? Nope. We checked our logs - no one except developers didn't log in, there's only our update log. Peaks of the load fell on 4, 16, 18 of September. It could be botnet and for sure favicon_12d923(attached) - start-file. But how could they access the server? What means of prevention besides the correct chmod and passwords changing on FTP would you suggest? (providing that we are using shared server and have no config permissions) So, attaching files in hope that someone will be interested in decoding this malware. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9z-2aT_AUzaElDbUZmMmx2ckU/view?usp=sharing
2017.04.07 21:15 Pg21_SubsecD_Pgrph12T.G.I.FRAUD-day: Christian-themed video game company attempts to turn water into wine.
Happy Friday, everyone! This is for all the staffs and seniors who have found red flags, only to be ignored by your managers and partners... The company: Left Behind Games, Inc. (“LBG”), a penny-stock public company which sold religious themed video games based on the popular Christian "Left Behind" novel series. The perpetrators:: Troy Lyndon (CEO/CFO/"Video game guy") and his friend Robert Zaucha. The fraud: LBG round-tripped the cash proceeds from the sale of its own stock in order to create fake revenue and bolster its struggling financials. Zaucha sells his LBG shares on the market and kicks the proceeds back to LBG LBG hired Zaucha as a “consultant” who would be compensated with LBG stock. Based on false representations made by Zaucha that he was not an affiliate or related party of LBG, attorneys gave legal opinions permitting him to sell the shares on the market without registration. Between August 4, 2009, and October 10, 2011, Zaucha sold over 1.74 billion LBG, realizing over $4.6 million in proceeds. $3.3 million of these proceeds were then “kicked back” to LBG as follows:
$0.9 million for “early sell fees” under the consulting agreement.
$1.4 million for the round-trip purchase of LBG products through a shell company owned by Zaucha (discussed separately below)
$1.1 million of ‘other payments’.
Zaucha, who never truly performed any real consulting services for the company, kept most of the rest of the $4.6M proceeds which he used to buy property in California and Hawaii. $55K was kicked was back to Lyndon. LBG’s auditors learn about the “consulting” agreement and ignore red flags Shortly after being engaged by LBG in January 2011, LBG’s auditors learned about the Zaucha consulting arrangement and the cash he was giving back to LBG, purportedly because he sold “too many” of the LBG shares. These payments were referred to as “early sell fees” and “penalties”. Viewing this as a potential illegal attempt to evade federal securities laws, including Rule 144, the auditors reached out to one of the attorneys who wrote the opinion letters permitting removal of Rule 144 restrictions from Zaucha’s shares. The attorney was unaware that Zaucha was giving cash back to LBG and was unable to give an opinion that Zaucha’s payments of cash penalties were legal. In addition to this, there were no invoices or other evidence that Zaucha was providing any actual consulting services to LBG. After learning about all this, the engagement partner e-mailed one of the founding partners regarding whether the firm should resign from the LBG engagement. The founding partner responded:
"I view the email you sent to me from Troy Lyndon as both threatening and confusing – he doesn’t know what he is doing. His actions are highly illegal and best case is his attorney talked him into it. I really hate resigning (as you know) – I regard such as a challenge. However, I’d resign before compromising where such a problem exists. I haven’t read the [financial statement] disclosure you proposed and so don’t have an opinion, but your situation sounds very bleak. "
The engagement partner responded:
"I think we’re okay on the disclosure and [sic]. The only question is whether this guy is a nut job we are ready to issue barring any intervention. If you don’t have a problem, then we should issue."
The founding partner responded, copying everyone except the engagement quality review partner who had just been hired:
"This isn’t my job and you haven’t kept me informed. Troy [Lyndon] isn’t rational on this issue and the question is when and how he’ll get taken down. I request and assume you’ll have clear and explicit disclosures and resign if not."
The engagement partner responded to all of the recipients:
“No Okay. Disregard my request.”
The engagement quality review partner, who had recently been hired, was unaware of any discussions regarding resigning from the LBG engagement. Moreover, the engagement quality review partner had limited experience in auditing microcap companies. After consulting more with its auditors, LBG ended the consulting agreement with Zaucha and notified the SEC about $0.9 million “early sell” fees that Zaucha had kicked back to the company. The engagement partner also learned that Zaucha was an ex-convict. The proceeds from Zaucha's stock sales are round-tripped back to LBG to create false revenue During the same time that the auditors were questioning the “early sell fee” scheme, Lyndon and Zaucha were concocting another scheme to inflate LBGs revenues through a roundtrip transaction. Zaucha had created a shell company, Lighthouse Distributors, Inc., which entered into an agreement with LBG where it purportedly "purchased” LBG products for $1.4 million, accounting for 88% of LBG’s 2011 reported revenues (or inflated actual revenues by 733%). However, the $1.4 million would come from the very same cash proceeds from Zaucha's "consulting" agreement, effectively paying LBG with money from the sale of its own stock. With specific e-mail instructions from Lyndon and oral instruction from Zaucha, a Lighthouse employee signed the agreement as the purported “general manager” of Lighthouse, in order to conceal Zaucha’s control over Lighthouse from the auditors. As a result, Zaucha’s control of Lighthouse was not disclosed. The agreement was also backdated, stating that it was effective “as of” July 2010. The auditors never spoke with the employee who signed the document on behalf of Lighthouse. Further, Rather than re-selling the LBG products, in most instances, Lighthouse distributed them for free to Churches and religious groups. That Lighthouse was giving away LBG product was not disclosed in LBG’s financial statements, even though the audit manager assigned to the engagement was aware that Lighthouse was likely giving away at least some LBG product. Eventually the auditors discovered Zaucha’s role as owner of Lighthouse and became concerned that Zaucha may have used the proceeds from his sales of LBG stock to fund Lighthouse’s purchases of LBG product (ya think?). So, ensuring to take the utmost due care and adhering to professional standards, the auditors performed a rigorous audit test of….visiting Lighthouse’s website to determine if it was real. The website had a mission statement and a form for potential suppliers, but the identity of Lighthouse’s principal, Zaucha, was not disclosed on the website. The auditors did not attempt to obtain financial statements from Lighthouse. They also failed to detect that Lighthouse was not incorporated until five months after the distribution agreement was purportedly entered into andafter sales to Lighthouse had been recorded in LBG’s books. ...The auditors even failed to realize that Lighthouse was in the same building as LBG. In order to supplement the audit evidence of visiting LBG’s website, the auditors sought to get a written third-party confirmation from Lighthouse and sent one to Zaucha requesting him to confirm:
The sale transaction was “real”;
The sale transaction was not connected with the consulting arrangement
Whether or not proceeds from the stock sale were used to purchase the video games and
There were no side agreements
Zaucha returned the letter, confirming each of the above points, except that rather than confirming the key point of whether the proceeds from the sale of LBG stock were used to purchase the video games from LBG, Zaucha merely stated that:
“[a]ll decisions to invest monies into my distribution company were independent from any sale of LBG common stock.”
(From my time as an auditor, these types of vague, CYA responses were infuriating to me). None of the auditors inquired of Zaucha what he meant by this statement or why he altered the language in the original proposed confirmation letter. Moreover, in the audit rep letter, Lyndon removed a representation that Zaucha’s consulting fees were not a source of funds for Lighthouse’s purchases from LBG, falsely claiming that:
” I do not have access to the information that would be necessary to make a determination regarding the source of funds regarding Lighthouse’s purchases”
A senior auditor on the engagement team inquired of the audit manager in an email, “Is it OK that he took that line out of the rep letter?” ...There is no record that the audit manager responded to this inquiry. (GAHHHHH! This is why Seniors become disgruntled) A misleading 10-K is filed and the auditors' fees are paid by the very same funds generated from the fraud The auditors proposed a disclosure in the 10-K specifically calling out the circular nature of the Lighthouse transaction. Nevertheless, this language was omitted from the 10-K filed with the SEC, rendering it false and misleading. Prior to being filed the auditors possessed a redline draft of the 10-K with the proposed disclosure language clearly marked as deleted. Finally, as a cherry on top to this train wreck of an audit, On November 9, 2011 Zaucha (not Lyndon or LBG) wired $5,000 to the auditors in partial payment of LBG’s audit fee…. That’s right: The very funds from the underlying fraudulent transaction that they were auditing were used to pay for their own audit fees. I'm…I’m gob smacked. It’s so poetic. The fallout: LBG terminated all of its employees and closed its office at the end of 2011. Lyndon was charged by the SEC was forced to pay $3.6 million in penalties. In response he said,
"I'm just a video game guy. If any violation occurred, it would never have been intentional - and certainly, never fraudulent. My attorney told me that any person that earned shares could use them for any purpose. For more than two years, I've asked SEC to explain how and if I have violated any rule, so that I could self-report it. As I see it, the government has systematically and intentionally conspired to dismantle Left Behind Games and the facts are both true and hard to believe - worthy of a Ron Howard film or John Grisham novel."
According to his online biography, Lyndon was the "original team lead developer" of the first 3D versions of the John Madden Football video game, among others. Reuters could not immediately independently verify those details. Zaucha was forced to pay $2.6 million in penalties. The audit firm and engagement partner were also forced to pay monetary penalties, as well as require the entire firm to take 8 hours of fraud-detection training and 24 hours of audit training, with no less than four of those hours being devoted to related party identification and testing. Takeaways: With the benefit of hindsight it’s easy to just be utterly astonished by how the auditors let it get this far, but if you’ve worked in public you know how the intense pressure and hours can put stress on the engagement team, such that it causes them to rationalize and overlook certain things in order to make budget. At 11pm it can get pretty tempting to check “without exception” on the audit test that probably should warrant additional follow-up. And so what if the manager didn’t get back to you about the representation that was deleted out of the rep letter? We all know rep letters are just a formality, anyway, and you’re about to roll off the engagement into two relaxing weeks of PTO. It’ll be fine. Someone else will catch it during review. Sources: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sec-leftbehind-idUSBRE98O12320130925 https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/34-77755.pdf
2017.01.03 08:54 tiowsengJack 3: JackAss Inc., or How I Screwed an MNC (Part 1 - HR Jack)
Foreword: What is with the obsession as to where I'm from in my previous story? Does it really matter where I'm from? Anyway, I studied in Singapore and have many friends there but wow, you guys are really nationalistic online. Warning: Blah blah, really long post, blah blah. Background: This story takes place in Asia, not the US or any other Western country. I was screwed over for my first job after my hiatus in Jack 1, being naive and all (Fantastic job with ridiculous pay, benefits and prospects). The interview process consisted of multiples tests/interviews and took a total of 6 months. I was on the final interview, a 'formality' as I was told by HR - but was disqualified because the last interviewer "had a gut feel" I was hiding something since I was sweating bullets. HEY THIS WAS MY DREAM JOB AND I'M NERVOUSLY TRYING NOT TO FUCK IT UP HERE. The job went to my friend instead, who is really enjoying his life, whereby I'm simultaneously happy for him and salty AF. But that's another interviewer revenge plot for another time...hopefully. Anyway, that screwed me up for some time as I had stopped my job search while waiting for the contract signing. It was already Summer and I had been unemployed for a ridiculous amount of time in an unfavorable job market. Somehow, I was cold-called and offered the chance for a permanent position in a Fortune 500 MNC, with zero information on what the position was all about. Somehow, not much was known locally about this company despite their being in the Fortune 500, as they had only just recently setup offices in my country. The company was a 1.5 hour commute away from home, but I was assured that I could work in their alternate office in the city (30 mins commute) if I flagged this during the interview. The interview turned out to be more of a mass recruitment drive, where I underwent 3 interviews and was hired within the day. Unfortunately, the pay was below my expected salary range. Also, there was a 1-month notice period and a 2-year non-compete clause. Introducing the Jacks: The final HR interviewer, whom we shall call HR Jack, was a shrewd, fast-talking senior director at the company, JackAss Inc. HR Jack started writing off my past working experience as 'irrelevant', "mere internships", or "too short to count". I stood firm on my achievements, insisting on my minimum expected pay at least. HR Jack capitulated, promising a starting bonus to offset the pay difference, a non-technical managerial position, unrecorded leave days and a space in the popular city offices. HR Jack also assured me that I would be getting higher pay than anyone else in the same recruitment batch, which was why he could raise it no higher. My boss, whom we shall call Clueless Jack, was a senior project manager, but was never around and seemed to take a laissez-faire attitude to his subordinates' concerns. He had a habit of trying to take on as many projects as he could for extra credit, but ended up delivering the bare minimum for all of them. After complaints from clients, he would throw any available body on the project to fix his mess while he goes out and takes on even more projects. Incident I - Training Days On my first day, I was fobbed off at every moment when I tried to find out what my actual assignment was, given that I was lumped into one briefing room with everyone else. As it turns out, our assignments would be confirmed after a one-month training programme. For the first month, I had to report for training at 7am and go home at 7pm because the foreign instructors were getting paid by the hour and loved dragging the programme past schedule. The trainers were shitty, arrogant and rude, though HR Jack claimed that these trainers had 100% satisfaction rates. Even their course materials were stolen from elsewhere and they would email us pirate copies of e-books and keys for VM software and other stuff we needed. The trainers were extremely racist and sexist in their comments too, which made me wonder how the hell they got such high student satisfaction rates. Also, we were warned that we would be fired if we did not pass the highly difficult tests. I fell sick from the insane schedules and lack of sleep, but still had to attend lest my pay be docked. Anyway, I studied hard for the tests, since I needed the money. However, it turned out to be entirely pointless since the instructors literally went to every trainee, got them to fill up and sign their feedback forms with a perfect score before trading the forms for a peek at the answer sheets. Everyone fucking signed that shit, including myself - there was just no way I could do these insanely difficult questions in 20 minutes with only 2 weeks of shitty training. But hell, I was going to make them pay for this whole shitshow parody of a training course I was forced to go through. It was at this point where I started looking for another job just in case shit hit the fan. Revenge I - Wrecking JackAss Training Co.: After the test and my appointment was confirmed, I went straight to HR to complain about the instructors' behavior. HR was more than happy to cancel the training company's services and sue them for breach of contract, but they needed evidence. Nobody else would back me up, for fear of having the test results revoked. Thankfully, someone had recorded the class proceedings for their own reference and I borrowed their copy for 'reference' too. So, JackAss Training Co. lost at least one client and would be getting sued in the near future. Next, I sent evidence of the blatant use of pirated software and material by JackAss Training Co. to the official right holders, as well as the companies and universities they ripped their materials from. As far as I know, Jackass Training Co. had several lawsuits pending and shit reviews online if you google their name now. However, they are somehow still in operation, being one of the most budget training companies out there. Incident II - Red Flags: Towards the end of the training under a new company, we realized that we still had not been paid. Apparently, late payments were the norm in JackAss Inc. and I had to wait 1 additional week as per the maximum allowable late payment in the country. A conspicuous absence of any starting bonus was noted in my payslip, as was my title being reflected as "Programmer" - an obviously technical position. HR Jack said he would "check and get back to me". The new trainer was a sweet lady who taught us the company policies, which clearly emphasized how employees should give up personal time for work exigencies, keep all work incidents internal, never share salary information and the dire consequences of breaking any of the policies. She looked extremely uncomfortable when having to explain these to us, so alarm bells were going off in my head. Speaking to her during lunch, she admitted that she had dealt with JackAss Inc. in the past and they would not be a company she would send anyone she knew to. At this point, I got an interview request from another company with a stellar local reputation - but only during office hours. Slowly befriending the new trainer over lunches, she agreed to let me off for an extended lunch break to zip down for the job interview, while she signed off on my attendance first. The interview went great, but the new company warned me that I would need to sort out the long notice period and non-compete clause before they could even consider hiring me. Incident III - Broken Promises: After the training, I was posted to HQ instead of the city and told to settle in as a programmer. Finally I got to confront HR Jack in person, who admitted that they could not give me a starting bonus as my starting pay was way higher than the others and he would not be able to "explain the discrepancy" if asked. He also said that the city office was full and they were "working on" freeing up some space for me, and that the "Programmer" role was temporary under special request from my boss, Clueless Jack, as I had done so well for the tests. I retorted that we were told never to share our pay, so why would he ever be questioned on the pay discrepancy? Even if he were, he could point to my previous work experience. And he would have to give me something of equivalent value to make up for all the promises he was breaking, regardless. HR Jack proceeded to go around in circles, finally asking me for more time to arrange things. Smelling bullshit, I decided to test the limits of the non-disclosure clause. I sent an official email to HR Jack's underling, asking if I could disclose my pay - hinting that I needed to do so for the purposes of applying for a credit card. HR Jack's underling simply replied "Approved", which was all I needed. Note that I did not explicitly say that I wanted to disclose salary information for getting a credit card, but simply if it was okay to disclose. Next, I forwarded HR Jack Jr's email to a few trusted colleagues and we decided to share our payslip information. As it turns out, not only was I not the highest-paid programmer, our pay differences were massive - over USD$1000 between programmers of similar aptitude and backgrounds. Confronting HR Jack's underling, HR Jack Jr. blurted out that it was HR's job to seek the lowest pay possible. In fact, their performance bonuses depended on 1) % Salary cut below budgeted amount 2) Balanced occupancy of offices 3) Employee hiring and retention rates. Thankfully HR Jack Jr. was kinda dim. Basically, I now understood that HR Jack basically lied his ass off to hire and retain me at the lowest pay he could get me for. There was probably no way in hell I was going to the crowded city offices too and would probably be stuck in the remote office. Seriously, fuck JackAss Inc. I was sick of the late payments, terrible commutes/hours, lower-than-market pay and 'dynamic' job scope. Worst of all was the blatant lying, Fortune 500 can kiss my ass. I made the decision to make sure I let them have a taste of their own medicine. Revenge II - Screw your Contracts Previously, Clueless Jack was just lining up job after job on me, accepting contract deals and whatnot. I was swamped, trying to learn many new languages and platforms in order to take over client projects. Trying to tell Clueless Jack to let up was an impossible task - the man was never in the office, plus he would simply insist on it if I emailed him. After I made up my mind to leave however, I was like a changed man - I actively encouraged Clueless Jack to grab us more contracts, whatever it takes. I also started coming in at 10am and leaving at 3pm - Clueless Jack never knew and I would simply surf Facebook or Reddit, send a few emails and take a 2-hour lunch. I was well-rested, felt great, and kept in contact with the new company to assure them that I was definitely coming over and just had to settle a few affairs. One day, Clueless Jack decided to suddenly show up in office to have a big meeting where he would officially assign us to our projects. I texted him that I was 'busy' (drinking Starbucks) and would be coming in at 11am or so and to start without me. My colleagues said he was pissed, but insisted that they had to wait for me as I had the biggest share of projects as lead programmer. I walked in at 11.15am and handed him my resignation letter. Revenge III - Screw your Clauses Clueless Jack was piiiiissssed, but I refused to speak to anyone except HR. That didn't stop him from yelling about how horrible I was and how I would be costing them so many contracts. HR Jack was immediately called in to sort the matter out, where I put on this annoyingly smug grin I had been practising. HR Jack: Why are you quitting!? Me: Because you're a liar, that's why. Where's my starting bonus? Why am I still taking 1.5 hours getting to the remote office? Why am I the "highest earner" but others are being paid $500 more? Let me answer those for you: Because you lied in order to keep your bonus high and now I'm threatening to ding your retention rates. HR Jack: You can't threaten me, you can't leave until your notice period is over! Me: I know, but nobody sane would let me lead a project knowing that I was quitting barely a couple of weeks in, so you would have to bench me or make me a glorified admin worker while I wait out my notice. So would you rather waive this ridiculous notice period and get rid of me now, or would you rather let me get an extra month's pay for doing nothing? Remember, I've not earned JackAss Inc. a single cent in contracts yet, while you guys have been spending money on stupid trainings and paying me for them. How would that hurt your performance metrics? HR Jack: Look, look. I'm sorry. Let's try to be fair, alright? You want a higher pay? I'll give you a raise. How much are you looking for? An additional $800? Look, I'll round that up to $1000, that's a couple hundred higher than what is paying. I'll move some personnel about to make sure you go to the city offices and make sure you get transferred to a project management position after these projects are done, alright? Me: (thinking) What the fuck!? is paying that much for a programmer?! Me: (aloud) Backdate that pay to my start date immediately, and I'll think about it. HR Jack: Done. Give me some time to arrange your new office, do go and speak to Clueless Jack now, he needs to know if he can place you on the projects or not. Come back in an hour to sign the new contract, but I'll have to increase your notice period to 6 months, I hope you understand. Revenge IV - Screw your Clauses - Part Deux: An hour later, I returned to sign the new contract, waited a week and told Clueless Jack that he was still fucked, resubmitting my resignation again. Cue HR Jack storming in. HR Jack: What the fuck? I gave you what you wanted! Why are you still quitting? Didn't you see the new notice period of 6 months or until current project completion? (Sneaky fucker added that last bit in) Me: Same deal I gave you earlier. I'm going to sandbag you all the way - you can fire me, but that doesn't affect the massive ding that is going to put in your performance review. You barely review candidates, overpromise then underdeliver, all for that sweet bonus. HR Jack: If you leave now, I'll make sure you never work in this industry again. In fact, if you didn't notice, we have a 2-year non-compete clause for similar positions. Me: I'll have to thank you for making me a programmer then, something I never wanted. I'll be leaving for a non-technical management role. (Regret having said this, it was unnecessary disclosure and I should have held on to my cards) HR Jack: Fuck you, you're not worth this shit. Pack your bags and get out now! Aftermath: Joke's on HR Jack, I stopped even bringing a bag to work a long time ago. Stopped by to say goodbye and warn my other colleagues, grabbed a few more free drinks and snacks at the company pantry, turned in my ID to HR Jack Jr. and left. Called up the new company and was welcomed on-board immediately, with a paltry raise compared to my initial pay at JackAss Inc. However, the job ended up way better than I imagined and I'm still enjoying my time here. It took me a full month and a half to finally recover most of my now-inflated outstanding pay, which still ended up $20 short. It seems like JackAss Inc. needs a bigger kick in the ass, it seems. Part 2 Preview: Something something, disgruntled colleagues, contract shenanigans and more Clueless Jack! tiowseng's Pro-Revenge Stories: Age 18: Jack Chronicles 2: Ooh, you're an officer? You're still going down. (Trainee Officer Jack) Age 24: Ooh, so you've got strong political backers? You're still going down. (Papa Jack) Age 24: Jack 4: Jill's Revenge Age 25: Jack 3: JackAss Inc., or How I Screwed an MNC (Part 1 -HR Jack) Age 26: Jack 3.5: JackAss Inc., or How I Screwed an MNC (Part 2 - JackAss Inc.)
2016.12.30 06:11 tiowsengJack Chronicles 2: Ooh, you're an officer? You're still going down.
Foreword: You guys have been awesomely supportive of my previous story. I've done some self-reflection and found that I have actually been doing this sort of thing my whole life, just that I never really thought of it that much. So I think I'll start a series of revenge stories at different points in my life, hope you guys like it! Warning: This story's first half is all /pettyrevenge, read on past it to get to the pro stuff! It's also ridiculously long. Background: This story takes place in Asia, not the US or any other Western country. I was a Private in the military when I was 18, serving as an engineer in charge of infrastructure maintenance, including roads and vehicles. This suited me well, since your boy tiowseng is scrawny AF and couldn't really hike a combat load too far. From time to time, I was rostered to perform admin duties, which meant I had ample time to read up on military protocols, which would be important later on. Being great with tech stuff, I helped out the other Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) a lot and reaped a lot of good karma. Jack's Background: There was this particular trainee officer, whom we shall also call Jack. Jack was in his late 20s, fresh out of Officer School as a regular. Over here, rank matters a shit-ton. Even the senior warrant officers in their 50s would bend the knee for a fresh baby-faced officer, especially a regular. Now, Jack was seriously buff and had all sorts of expensive gear like Oakleys, activity trackers (which were damn expensive back in the day). And he loved to show all this off, coming in to work in non-regulation marathon shirts, gym shirts and the like, while also wearing those damn mirrored Oakleys indoors. A typical jock, if you will. The Incident: So there I was one morning, taking attendance during my admin duties. I had to personally call anyone who wasn't on-base during roll-call to confirm their status for the day. There was a new addition to the list, an Officer-Trainee Jack who was still not on base. The conversation went as such: Me: "Good Morning Jack, this is Private tiowseng calling from . Please let me know if you would be on-base today." Jack: "What did you call me?" Me: "Uhm, Jack?" Jack: "I think you meant Lieutenant Jack, SIR." Me: "...So would you be on base today?" Jack: "Yes, and you'd better show me some respect there, PRIVATE. tiowseng was it?" Me: "Thank you for confirming your status. Goodbye." -Hangs Up- I was seething. This guy had yet to go for his coronation commissioning ceremony and yet demanded to be called "Sir"?. According to protocol, a trainee had only a temporary rank. By virtue of having to be trained by NCOs of a lower but permanent rank, all temporary rank assignments were officially given zero weight next to a permanent rank. As such, even a goddamn Private held a 'higher' rank than an Officer-Trainee. Unofficially, most NCOs and enlisted would not dare to offend a soon-to-be Officer, for fear of being condemned to the shitter. But not your boy tiowseng, I took no shit from anyone. Jack's Petty Revenge: On Jack's first day, he came in and immediately called a special meeting, ranting about how there was a lack of discipline in the section and he had already personally witnessed a "goddamn private" disrespecting him. To start off, he instituted daily morning drills and exercises. Foot drills. In a service and maintenance unit. Seriously. But as per usual, the other senior NCOs started with the ring-kissing and lauded his 'initiative' as a "great idea", promising to look into this "goddamn private". After a quick glance at the duty roster, I was called in by THREE senior NCOs, who furiously demanded to know what happened. Being on good terms with them, they dropped the act once I was in the private briefing room and I related the whole incident to them, including how I said my 'Pleases' and 'Thank Yous', as per the usual script. They determined that I technically did no wrong, so they couldn't punish me. But I was warned to be careful in future. From then on, I'd make sure my ass was covered every time I bent the rules or anything. I was by far, the model soldier in the unit for the year as far as anyone knew. Always on time, always properly attired, all procedures followed to the letter. I also took extra pleasure in calling for "Officer-Trainee Jack" over the intercom as and when I was on admin duty. Still, Jack found many petty ways to screw with me after he shortly received his full rank, such as ordering me to clean his room and running other errands. Knowing I was scrawny AF, he ordered lots of insane Physical Training (PT) exercises as well. I had my own petty counters, such as wrapping his (fake!) Oakleys on the drawer lock while cleaning his room, so he would wreck them when he opened it. Making sure his drinks were cold when they got back (with extra spit), filling his bottle with water from the urinal flush, putting ants in his protein powder, etc. Also, always wriggled out of PT by volunteering for admin duties or otherwise. The worst of his petty revenge plots was that he reported me for theft of equipment. I had packed some decommissioned supplies in my personal bag with permission from the Logistics NCO. Somehow, my bag was ransacked and anonymously reported to the Commanding Officer (CO). A repeat of the 3-NCO debrief happened again but I KNEW it was Jack. That smug-ass kept loitering outside the room with a shit-eating grin on his face, but was sorely disappointed when I was let off. This was when I knew I had to escalate before one of his subsequent plots eventually succeeds. /pettyrevenge ends here /prorevenge starts here Social Isolation: Jack 1, tiowseng 0: Having failed to get me punished, Jack fired the first salvo. He used one of the techniques I would steal in my later revenge plots, which was to socially isolate the target. Jack suddenly became real generous, buying drinks and snacks for my team as well as the other NCOs. Of course, he excluded me and made it damn clear that anyone who supported me ended up on the same shit-errand duties I did. Soon, nobody associated with me except the senior NCOs, who knew what was happening but didn't want to risk their pensions stepping in. Knowing my team was chronically late for duty, he instituted a rule that all enlisted men who were late for roll-call even once in the year would be punished with a 4-hour punishment PT - but he never enforced it as long as my team supported him. I knew what it meant though, and kept up my impeccable punctuality, even at the cost of having to abandon some team members who were running late and needed a lift from me. The Revenge Part 1 - Social Isolation: Jack 1, tiowseng 1: Now, being in an engineering unit, almost everyone was a motorhead - spending their downtime tuning their personal vehicles and swapping parts/tips. Everyone treated their cars better than their wives here. Typically, we turn a blind eye to the personal use of work tools and parts - some NCOs even fill up their tanks with leftover petrol after exercises, which was hugely illegal but "I didn't see anything". Anyway, Jack didn't own a car, so he loved borrowing NCOs' personal cars to run errands on-base. The junior NCOs reluctantly complied to handing over their babies' keys, but were generally okay with it as he often returned with free drinks. However, Jack loved revving these modded cars and driving them really hard over speedbumps for the thrill of it once out of sight of the section office. Knowing this, but unable to capture video proof (no cameras on-base), I initiated some repainting works on the speedbumps along his favourite route, painting on the fluorescent strips right before his usual morning coffee run. As expected, Jack smeared that shit by driving some poor NCO's car hard through the bump, with a sickening scrape. I reported that further repair works were needed due to destroying the paint at 0915H to the maintenance NCO, who quickly connected the dots. Soon, all the junior NCOs were flooding out to the carpark, discovering the horrendous scratches and scrapes on their undercarriages. From that day on, all the junior NCOs avoided Jack, while their cars were perpetually "in the workshop" or "borrowed by the wife", etc. In actual fact, they simply parked the cars at the other end of the base and hitched rides on our trucks in. Jack got so desperate once he even asked me for MY car keys. Blank stare and an incredulous "WTF?" look were all that was needed to convey my message. The Revenge Part 2 - Wrecking his Car: Jack showed up one day at work in a fucking Maserati with an admittedly sick-looking low body kit. Being motorheads, everyone flocked out to gawk at his car and beg for rides. My work in Revenge Part 1 about to be undone, I had to come up with a plan to stop him, fast. I took out some leftover petrol, leaving them near the carpark. My intention being to tempt him to steal the petrol and report him later. Unfortunately, I should have foreseen that nobody puts cheap petrol in a Maserati, but I was a younger, dumber tiowseng back then. On to Plan B. I knew that there was an old road in the base which none of the more experienced drivers take, due to its abrupt change in grade. Many fenders have gouged deep marks in the road, so it was almost exclusively for trucks and SUVs. Jack hasn't been here long enough to have to use that road, so I grabbed my truck and repaired that section of road, hiding all the gouges. The next day, I parked my truck across his preferred road, claiming I had to do maintenance (There was like only a 2-inch pothole to repair, but whatever). I redirected him to the alternative road and 'kindly' (read: sarcastically) told him that it's good he drives slow, since he was a new driver. That pissed him right off, with him revving the engine and charging down the detour road. Soon after, a satisfying bang was heard. I did my repairs leisurely, logged everything and headed back to the office to watch the show. Jack was in the maintenance room, holding back tears, begging the senior technicians to fix the car as he admitted to borrowing it from a friend who went on holiday. I swore this unexpected revelation caused my justice-boner to almost explode out of my pants. The car was still driveable, although the hood, bumper and body kit were damaged. The senior techs did all they could, but concluded that they simply didn't have the parts to fix a Maserati - Jack was going to have to take it to a workshop, by which they gave him a number of contacts to third-party workshops who could repair it with cheap parts for below USD 8,000 before his friend gets back and finds out. Was I going to let him off that easy with an $8,000 bill? Nope. I felt horrible that he was about to fuck over a friend who trusted him with his goddamn Maserati too. So I wrote an accident report, stating the license plate and the scene of the accident, kindly also recommending that speedbumps be installed, along with slow-down signs on the road. This triggered an investigation from HQ into just how fast the car was going, as well as the identity of the owner. HQ somehow got a hold of the actual owner's records and informed him that his car was in an accident on-base. Jack. was. so. fucked. His friend was livid and insisted on sending his car to an official workshop, which costs I-don't-even-wanna-know how much higher. Jack started asking around for personal loans from other officers and NCOs, while calling banks. I'm not sure how he paid it off or if he ever did, but hell that was an interesting month where he did not even dare to look at me. From what I heard, he never drove a personal vehicle again after that accident and the NCOs felt safer bringing their cars back to the section carpark. He would still ask for rides like a dick though. The Revenge Part 3 - Wrecking his Career: By now I had been promoted to Corporal and was in charge of my team - who were still afraid to stand with me when Jack was around. Jack was still a threat - he had also recovered from Revenge Part 2 and started up again with the petty shit. It was nearing Christmas, and Jack was cocksure I was late at least once - since every single member of my team had been so. Jack decided then was the time to enforce his 4-hour PT exercise rule, sacrificing the whole team to get to me. I stayed in the office. Jack phoned me to get my ass out and hug the ground. I refused and started printing out my time logs. Jack busted in angrily and I dumped the stack of logs right in front of him, showing my perfect attendance. After getting nowhere in insisting that I work out "with the team", he got the CO and other officers involved as it "looked bad for team morale" to have me just sitting there. I retorted that it would "look worse if an officer didn't keep his word and indiscriminately punished people. There would be no incentive to clock-in on time, in this case". CO took my side, which infuriated Jack to no end. As a compromise, the CO personally took me for a leisurely jog around the compound as part of routine PT instead of a punishment. I took the chance to play up my part as a victim to the CO, listing several incidents in which Jack had tried to get me in trouble. Having witnessed his outburst earlier, the CO agreed that Jack had a personal vendetta, but had few grounds to terminate him. The most he could do was transfer him to another base, which I agreed to immediately. "But wait, tiowseng", you ask. "How is a lateral transfer wrecking his career?" Well, that half of the story happens 6 months later, when the bigwigs decided to shift my team to - you guessed it, Jack's base. The Revenge Part 3.2 - Wrecking his Career (for real this time): When we got to the new base, I was shocked to hear how everyone sang Jack's praises. Oh, he was the golden child, he had brilliant ideas and was on track to make Captain soon. Jack's attitude in the new base had changed 180 degrees. He was all friendly, helped out, continued buying drinks and was never a hard-ass. I guess he learnt his lesson back in the old base and now tried his best to win the popularity contest before he fucked people over. Jack was entirely too happy to see me, hinting that once he made Captain he would have the power to effect personnel transfers and oversee promotions/demotions. In fact, he was already acting Captain and would be doing my performance appraisal. Screw that! I insisted, as was my right, to have another officer do my appraisal. That other lazy officer apparently farmed out the job to Mr Helpful Jack anyways, who gave me a shit grade - which I protested up the chain of command and got it revised to something more reasonable, but not what I expected to get. Having almost been ruined by Jack, I had to act fast and take him down before he made full Captain. During one of my admin duties, I dug out Jack's records and pored through every section religiously. Jack apparently didn't cheat or lie on his records (I called up to check), but the records were entirely unremarkable. Barely passing out of Officer School, unremarkable testimonial, nothing. His academic records were horrible - he would not be able to secure his current salary in the private sector, for sure, but not a roadblock in the military. I had zero allies in this new base and was grasping at straws, stalking him to catch him doing something - anything, outside of regulations. Non-regulation shirts? Probably just a slap on the wrist. Coming in late and leaving early? Ditto. Spending all day working out in the gym instead of working? Nah, the other officers here would likely cover for him given how little work they do too. Personal indiscretions? Nothing. Fuck, he was good. I was stumped. Then, it came to me. Jack had been driving our military trucks when he wants to do hands-on demonstrations to the enlisted men on how "it should be done", looking all bad-ass and shit. However, none of the other officers ever drove our trucks, much less step out of their air-conditioned office if possible. Why was this so? OH RIGHT, YOU NEEDED A MILITARY LICENSE OF A DIFFERENT CLASS TO DRIVE A MILITARY TRUCK. And officers did NOT go through that course by default. Of course, Jack was no different and had no military license in his records. Well, well, well. I volunteered for the publicity team for our next recruitment drive, which included taking a video of one of our trucks being driven. Being the Golden Boy and an attention whore, Jack kindly accepted the nomination of the other officers to star in the video. I acted all butthurt about having to make him look good and all, but got the video published in the public domain. Then I submitted my report that a "routine review" had uncovered how Jack drove military trucks on multiple occasions without a military license. No amount of cover-ups could be done by his buddy officers, since the video was dated and published long before they somehow rushed to get him a backdated temporary license. The issue was repeatedly repressed at each point in the chain, but I would simply report it further up the chain after the deadline to respond expired, as was protocol. The Aftermath: I don't know much about what happened after that, but Jack never made it as Captain. The other officers and NCOs also no longer saw any benefit in licking his boots, as he was apparently barred from promotion and had a pay-freeze for an unspecified amount of time. Soon after, he resigned and apparently became a pretty shitty freelance artist. I hope he fails. tiowseng's Pro-Revenge Stories: Age 18: Jack Chronicles 2: Ooh, you're an officer? You're still going down. (Trainee Officer Jack) Age 24: Ooh, so you've got strong political backers? You're still going down. (Papa Jack) Age 24: Jack 4: Jill's Revenge Age 25: Jack 3: JackAss Inc., or How I Screwed an MNC (Part 1 -HR Jack) Age 26: Jack 3.5: JackAss Inc., or How I Screwed an MNC (Part 2 - JackAss Inc.)
2016.10.25 13:52 ladyships[#13278] In 2008, the Clinton Foundation ransacked its endowment to "restore" $23 million in misallocated CHAI restricted grants prior to signing the MOU with the Obama administration.
Before addressing specific assertions in the letter, it is important to set a context for the existence of CHAI and its relationship with the Foundation dating back to 2008. In July 2008, Ira Magaziner, CHAI's CEO, and Anil Soni, CHAI's president at the time, informed the Clinton Foundation that CHAI, then a part of the Clinton Foundation, had been using grant funds from restricted grants (i.e., grants made to CHAI pursuant to a written grant agreement that provides that the grant funds shall be used to fund a specific CHAI program) to fund other CHAI programs. This practice had resulted in CHAI over-spending its financial resources by over $23 million. The Clinton Foundation was forced to use almost all the funds it had set aside to begin an endowment to "restore" the $23 million to the original grants." CHAI's success today is not only due to the vision and leadership of President Clinton, but more directly to the financial support that the Clinton Foundation provided to CHAI at a time when CHAI's own fiscal mismanagement would have been the end of the organization.
Documents obtained by this website suggest that the Directors of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative Inc may have falsified a merger agreement and backdated documents by more than 12 months to deceive the IRS, donors and others about the Foundation's HIV activities. In 2005, the William J. Clinton Foundation (31-1580204) and the Clinton Foundation HIV Aids Initiative Inc (20-0921629) (CHAI) were separate legal entities and thus required to lodge individual IRS returns. Each operated as a 501(c)(3) charitable tax exempt foundation. The CHAI was incorporated as a non-profit in Arkansas on 24 March 2004. It applied on that same day for a licence to operate in the State of Massachusetts from its head office at 225 Water Street Quincy. It was registered as a corporation licensed to operate in Massachusetts on 4 May 2004. The distribution of pharmaceuticals was not an approved tax exempt purpose, there is a specific prohibition against a grant of tax exemption for pharmaceutical distribution published at the IRS website. [...] Ira and the boys had some sort of problem in 2006 that apparently made it desirable for the CHAI Inc and its 501(c)(3) details to disappear. But to do that effective 31 December 2005, Ira would have to find the agreements they signed at the time. Or someone would have to forge them.
Exhibit #4:In 2008, Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative Inc ("Old" CHAI) was dissolved by regulators in Massachusetts over its failure to lodge annual reports in consecutive years. ——————————————— I have yet to see any stories highlighting the contents of that attachment in conjunction with the context of what was happening with CHAI at that time period—& its implications for the quite misleading portrayal of the state of the Clinton Foundation & related entities' finances while the memorandum of understanding (MOU) was being signed with the Obama administration prior to Hillary being confirmed as secretary of state. ——————————————— Addendum regarding the Memorandum of Understanding between the Clinton Foundation & the Obama admin: That MOU, by the way, was backdated one month for no apparent reason. Compare the dates signed in these versions: 1. #PodestaEmails versions:
2014.11.20 03:55 Test_the_limits[Audit Project Help] Looking for some help to answer a few core questions.
Looking to get some help/insight into an Auditing class project/presentation. We are asked to evaluate an SEC AAER (Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases) and answer some core questions: 1) What were the auditing deficiencies? 2) What is the proper accounting? 3) What were the red flags? 4) What should the auditor have done differently? Here is the AAER: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2012/34-67900.pdf The AAER is on the Company Embarcadero Tech Inc. & its CEO (Wong) and their controller (Michael C. Pattison) TLDR: As a team, they backdated stock and Pattison (Controller) a licensed CPA at the time, was convicted and ordered to pay a fine, in conjunction with the Commission permanently disqualifying Pattison as a practicing accountant before the Commission. I have the basics of some of these questions, but The AAER case really does not give very much information on the auditors and what procedures and such they used. So I was looking for any help or insight to answers to any of these questions. Below is a start to the information that I have. (at this point some of the information may be better under a different core question) But I wanted to post information that I have worked on thus far. What were the auditing deficiencies? • Gathering sufficient audit evidence o Date check of when Wong approved o Pattison did not properly record backdated stock option grants (Proper presentation & Disclosure) o To be legal, backdating must be clearly communicated to the company shareholders, properly reflected in earnings, and properly reflected in tax calculations o Pattison produced quarterly summaries that he knew contained backdated information, and parking backdated stock options in various inactive employee accounts for later use o “every stock option grant during the period in question has a grant date selected with hindsight, yet (Pattison) never expressly disclosed the date of ACTUAL APPROVAL by CEO Wong on ANY document. o • Exercising due professional care o Pattison did not tell the auditors that Wong instructed him to “sock away” stock options or to “wipe” the Scantland grant • By contrast, Rule 102(e)(1), codified by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,41 authorizes the Commission to discipline professionals for "improper professional conduct," defined for accountants as conduct that the Commission finds "results in a violation of applicable professional standards," and meets certain mens rea requirements. • Demonstrating appropriate level of professional skepticism o After the auditors tested the Scantland grant as part of their review, they recorded in their workpapers Pattison's explanation that the Scantland grant had been an error and recorded in the wrong place under the wrong name. Pattison did not tell the auditors that Wong instructed him to "sock away" stock options or to "wipe" the Scantland grant. • Using inquiry as form of evidence (relying too much on this method) o Embarcadero’s VP of human resources spoke with Pattison & Pattison admitted that he “put some options in an employee’s account for another employee” and the VP responded with “ it is just wrong on so many levels” (He did not do anything else! May 2004) • Relying on internal controls (rely too much/failing to react to known control weaknesses) o Pattison knew that Scantland was no longer an employee and that the stock options were not intended for him o Pattison recorded the recording of all equity account activity, including activity related to the issuance of stock options to employees (Segregation of duties) • Under APB 25, a company granting an in-the-money stock option is required "to record an expense for the 'profit,' treated as compensation to the option recipient over the [option's] vesting period."15 In other words, the benefit to the option recipient is recorded on the company's corporate books and in the company's financial statements as a non-cash compensation expense.16 Otherwise, "the company's reported net income is overstated for each of the years the options vest, potentially deceiving the market and investors."17 Pattison knew that under APB 25 "in-the-money" options had to be reported as a compensation expense. o Pattison produced quarterly summaries that he knew contained backdated information, and parking backdated stock options in various inactive employee accounts for later use o Board of Directors did not properly designate individuals to maintain records of stockholders.
2014.09.24 23:16 PaladineUKTrion Issuing Refunds but removing threads on forums which inform users how to get them.
So I posted a Letter Before Action to Trions legal department on Monday giving them until 5pm today (PST) to issue me a refund otherwise I would be forced to take legal action against them. I was repeatedly refused a refund by their Customer Support (the latest refusal being less than 24 hours ago) and then today, before the issued deadline, I received an email from the legal department telling me a refund had been issued - followed minutes later with an email from Paypal confirming a refund had been issued. I posted my original Letter Before Action on the forums earlier this week - Trion removed it because they did not want users to know how to demand a refund. I posted a screenshot of the refund notification from Paypal and again a copy of the letter I sent to Trion, this evening - and Trion have once again deleted the thread (and this time banned me from the forums for 3 days) because they do not want users to know how they can demand a refund. So now I am forced to post the letter on here to ensure that users who have been misled by Trion Worlds Inc. have the correct information on how they can receive a refund. Make no mistake, Trion Worlds Inc. have breached your statutory rights by not delivering what you purchased and you are entitled to a refund - Trion Worlds Inc. know this but they do not want their customers to know because they know over 80% of founders are dissatisfied and if a large percentage of them enforce their rights to a refund it will have a significant impact on their cash flow and profits. To obtain a refund send the following letter to [email protected] replacing the redacted information with your own and changing the deadline date to be 3 business days after you send it. If they fail to respond by the deadline, file a complaint both with the Federal Trade Commission and with your local regulator. I will be setting up a web site with this information soon and will post the details here on Reddit. ===LETTER BEGINS WITHOUT PREJUDICE To Whom it may concern, I purchased Archeage “Archeum Founder’s Pack” the day it was launched and believe the product was mis-sold for the reasons outlined below:
The cape which was advertised in the founders pack is different to the cape that was finally issued with the founders pack.
The 4 day headstart promised with founders pack was not playable due to server queues.
The items from the founders pack were not delivered during the 4 day headstart as promised.
The 10% marketplace discount was not delivered as promised.
The advertising and information provided by your community support (on the forums, social media and on your Twitch channel) were false as follows:
a. We were assured that the changes in patch 1.2 which were considered as bad by the Korean market would not be implemented into Trion Worlds’ westernised version of the game – but all the changes from the Korean 1.2 Patch were included, making the game significantly different from how it was advertised. b. We were assured that the 90 000 proficiency point system would not be brought into the westernised version of the game, but it was. c. We were assured that as patrons we would have priority access to the game, yet in order to play most of us have to queue for 6+ hours during which many are disconnected and their queue position reset to the end. d. Patron status was (and still is) advertised as giving Patrons an advantage by being able to purchase land – even though there is no land available in the game currently due to a bug at headstart which gave a minority of people an advantage (receiving duplicate founders packs so they could claim all land in just a few hours). I have raised a ticket with Trion Worlds’ Support (REDACTED) on 13th September 2014 and have yet to have it resolved – in that ticket I requested a refund of the founders pack purchase as is my right under law, due to the fact that the game is materially different from the advertised game and that I did not receive the things I purchased. I have not received a reply on the ticket since 14th September 2014 and that reply was simply a “scripted” response which did not reference the issue of the ticket or offer any solution. I would not have purchased the “Archeum Founders Pack” had I known the items would not be delivered; the game would suffer unreasonable queues (6+ hours); the items I purchased would be changed; the discounts would be removed; and the promises on what would not be included in the 1.2 patch would indeed be included. As a result of Trion Worlds’ failure to deliver a product I purchased, in a reasonable time frame and failing to provide billing support in a reasonable time frame as well as mis-selling that product, issuing misleading information on their world wide web forums; their social media accounts on Twitter, Reddit and Facebook; and their weekly Twitch video streams; it is my belief that Trion Worlds Inc. have and continue to breach US Code Title 15, Chapter 2, Subchapter I, § 45 with regards to the use of “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” and as such, I am sending this letter before action with the hopes that Trion Worlds Inc. will now honour my rights under the law and issue the requested refund. Should Trion Worlds Inc. fail to provide said relief by 5:00pm (17:00) PST on 24th September 2014, I will be forced to take further action via the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as well as informing my bank that you have failed to deliver the product/service I have paid for and requesting my bank to issue a “chargeback” for the funds you obtained with your deceptions. In the event that my bank is unable to issue the “chargeback” I will commence with an action in the small claims court for which I will seek full costs and interest at the national rate backdated to the day of purchase, in addition to the original purchase price and will also seek an injunction against Trion Worlds Inc. in order to prevent them from continuing to advertise the product in a misleading fashion (such as the land availability issue); I will also request from the judge that Trion Worlds Inc. be forced to issue a statement on the front page of their web site acknowledging the judgment and apologising to all “Archeum Founders” for their misleading statements and deceptive practices. Should there be enough interest from other “Archeum Founders” I may seek “class action” status for the suit. Sincerely, COPIES RETAINED
Backdating Policies: Why Would You? What Does It Mean?
Rennline DA75 Dash Backdate Kit
What is OPTIONS BACKDATING? What does OPTIONS BACKDATING mean? OPTIONS BACKDATING meaning
Finance: What is Backdating?
What is backdating?
Faculty on Point Professor Rob Daines on Backdating Stock Options
Backdating isn't when you only date a person's back...though to be honest, that sounds less intimidating than regular dating... IBC Global Inc Recommended for you. 7:04. Faculty on Point Professor Rob Daines on Backdating Stock Options - Duration: 7:25. stanfordlawschool Recommended for you. 7:25. Rennline Dash Backdate Kit– The Making Of - Duration: 2:02. Rennline Inc. 764 views. 2:02. Rennline PM01.49 ExactFit Phone Mount Installation - Audi B9 Q5 '18+ - Duration: 3:03. Options backdating may still occur under the new reporting regulations, but Sarbanes-Oxley compliant backdating is far less likely to be used for dishonest reasons due to the short time frame that ... More On Commonly Asked Questions? https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3qYetO2Oc877_NEJ53EKtwfj-Zv8J8-v . . . Music: https://soundcloud.com/aka-dj-quads B... Backdating Policies: Why Would You? What Does It Mean? - Duration: 7:04. IBC Global Inc 500 views. 7:04. Saturday Message - Rob Daines - Duration: 10:03. The Menlo Park Stake Recommended for you.