This is an oddly passive-aggressive comment when a much more likely read is they were relying on the funding and the large tech company did what large tech companies do and started moving slowly.

And I can see others already blaming them for relying on the vulnerability for living expenses, but if we can hold the hyper-rationalization for a second, we shouldn't be against the person who expected an organization with more money than God to uphold a deal for relative peanuts, right?

Like yes we all get that large orgs make spending $5 very hard, many claps for being the in-group, but their frustration would be understandable.

▲

866-RON-0-FEZ an hour ago | parent [-]

I'm supposed to feel bad that Microsoft didn't immediately wire him an advance on the bounty before validating anything? Have you ever tried to get anything corrected with a corporate payroll department? Try three months minimum.

It's like suggesting someone was relying on a lottery ticket to payout to survive.

	▲	BoorishBears an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I tried to be as coddling with my language as possible. Acknowledged how orgs work, separated blaming the org from sympathizing with their reaction, tried to separate the prudence of their actions from the sticky situation they'd still be left in by the orgs actions... But it was for naught: people are really ingrained in a weird "might-makes-right" model of corporate operations. "Larry Ellison is a lawnmower" was supposed to be a jeremiad but now it's more like a guiding principle that we browbeat anyone for questioning.