3 ms·
Your issue with the article is half the point of the article. All that emotional trauma with a hurried apology and no explanation. The point is that when "the
by mfoy_ 10y ago
Your issue with the article is half the point of the article. All that emotional trauma with a hurried apology and no explanation.
The point is that when "the system" is too uncaring, these are the kinds of consequences. A false positive from a mediocre field test caused this woman no end of grief. The takeaway is that when we, as engineers, design systems, we have to remember edge cases like these, we need to remember the person.
When your automated spam detection system flags an account, are you going to outright lock/delete it with extreme prejudice, or are you going to allow the account owner some recourse, and a chance to explain themselves to a real human?
I think this article highlights some huge problems with systems that have too much confidence in their tests / checks. Definitely a useful story for all of us to know.
- pdkl95 10y ago> ... when we, as engineers, design systems, we have to remember edge cases like these, we need to remember the person. Well said. I'll only add that this concern needs to extend all the way back to the initial decision to start designing a system. Technology can have a large impact on people simply by existing; it's worth taking the time to consider what that impact will be and how it will affect people, even the edge cases. This is becoming increasingly important as the effects of technology start to reverberate through the foundations of society. This makes the popular attitude of only considering the technology increasingly irresponsible; there is "No Neutral Ground in a Burning World"[1]. [1] https://media.ccc.de/v/30C3_-_5491_-_en_-_saal_1_-_201312272300_-_no_neutral_ground_in_a_burning_world_-_quinn_norton_-_eleanor_saitta https://media.ccc.de/v/30C3_-_5491_-_en_-_saal_1_-_201312272...