3 ms·
No. I'm saying that unless the guy owned the $200 million, and could've done whatever he wanted with the money, then he's not the one that lost it. In any case
by ta1234567890 6y ago
No. I'm saying that unless the guy owned the $200 million, and could've done whatever he wanted with the money, then he's not the one that lost it.
In any case, here's the definition of liability: "the state of being responsible for something, especially by law". So liability is responsibility.
- fennecfoxen 6y agoExcuse me. We use English on Hacker News. We do not use Lojban. Because we use English, we will as a group continue to use terms such as "responsible" in the normal manner of the English language. No one has ever said that this was extraordinarily precise. This is one such use. Your hair-splitting complaints are not particularly appropriate to this forum as they do not effectively serve to make its communication more effective; nor do I have any reason to believe they are they an effective psychological marker of responsibility and the illusion of control as you assert.
- Karunamon 6y agoI'm responsible for expensive systems at work, and many of them have a value in excess of my entire net worth. At no point am I liable beyond possibly losing my job if I screw up and damage those systems. They are different words for a reason.
- ta1234567890 6y agoAgain, you are deviating the issue by bringing up the responsibility/liability issue. I'm not arguing that. If anything, you are essentially making my point. The guy in the story was not liable for the $200 million (beyond his job), hence he didn't personally lose the money, even though he says "I lost $200 million".