2 ms·

No, it is not. I meant what I wrote.

• yladiz 9y ago
  Let me put it another way: I don't understand your argument, so I clarified and asked if your argument was X. You said it's not, so what is your argument?
  • _jal 9y ago
    The argument is that, based on the news reports, the system breaks often enough to risk causing more panic and alarm than it solves, so instead of doubling down on a bad idea, perhaps the right course of action is to reconsider the feature. You seemed to want my argument to be some absurdly rigid form of "ship only on perfect performance". It isn't - it is more that treating misfires and the predictable, if irrational, responses something like this will generate in actual emergencies as if they were as trivial as, say, bad ad targeting is irresponsible and should be given substantially more thought.