5 ms·

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.y

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I think it's both unfair and non-constructive to pick apart a apology letter based on one word like that. Let's assume good faith, especially when the writer's English might not be their first language (based on their name).

akersten 5y ago
We are talking about deliberate security vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel, a piece of critical infrastructure. Frankly, this is not the place to assume good faith.
- varajelle 5y ago
  But they did not introduce security vulnerabilities as there prevented the bad patches from being merged
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    Those measures were insufficient, as according to the developers, a number of the bogus patches were merged and had to be reverted.
    - varajelle 5y ago
      I think the kernel maintainer reverted all the patches coming from that university, regardless if they were bogus or not.
    - rincebrain 5y ago
      Sort of? The "hypocrite commits", according to the researchers' own paper, originated from "random Gmail addresses", and the researchers continue to claim none of those got merged (though since they haven't told us what they were, ...) The additional claim is that some of the commits not covered by their "hypocrite commits" (and thus, submitted from their UMN addresses) contained security bugs, deliberate or not, and the loss of trust in the researchers is sufficient to justify reverting all of their commits until they can be reviewed.
tdeck 5y ago
I think this response misses the point. The purpose of an apology is to make the recipient feel that you're sorry. That means thinking about how word choice is received is critical in crafting a good one. Your parent isn't saying the author's choice of words is in "bad faith", they're saying the author's word choice falls short of an effective apology due to a mistake that's common and easy to make. I agree, and I have done this myself in the past.
- lynndotpy 5y ago
  It seems like a nitpick to me, since the rest of the apology uses the proper choices of words, though. "The method used was inappropriate", "we made a mistake", etc. The apology is also specific about what they did wrong despite their intentions. It really is a good apology after reading past the first six words.
  - Bootvis 5y ago
    ESL here. How correct is it to use ’any harm’ to mean ‘all harm’.
    - sings 5y ago
      There isn’t much difference and both are really correct. The problem with ‘any’ as raised here is the ambiguity. It could be taken to mean ‘any harm, if it occurred’ or ‘any single bit of harm that did occur’. So in this sense ‘all harm’ would be safer and less ambiguous.
    - mkl 5y ago
      Not correct, at least in this context. "Any harm" means there could be no harm, or some harm, but "all harm" admits there was harm. I.e. "any" is not an admission of doing harm, or an acceptance that it happened. If you want to apologise, "all harm" admits you caused harm, which seems necessary for an apology. "Any" is a bit like those "I'm sorry if you were offended" non-apologies, though in this case the rest of the message does better than that.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
chris_wot 5y ago
That’s responding to comments on HN. This apology wasn’t on HN.
Griffinsauce 5y ago
> English might not be their first language (based on their name) This is a pretty weak assumption. Someone's name (and physical appearance) don't give you an accurate information about anything.
- shard 5y ago
  I don't think it's that weak of an assumption. First, considering all the people with foreign names in relevant groups (multinational corporations, or in this case, a researcher/ student at a university), I would say the chances that their first language is not English is high enough to be a consideration. And even if it is, there are also regional variations regarding what are common and accepted ways of phrasing things. Second, similar to the rule used here at HN, giving the text a more charitable read should be the starting point.
shkkmo 5y ago
I read it as a comment that was criticizing the language, not the intention of the apology. As such they are not inferring that the apology was insincere but pointing out language that in the apology that the posted has often added themselves that gives the appearance of insincerity of the recipient. To me that is the strongest possible interpretation of the comment you are replying to.
FridayoLeary 5y ago
those guidelines only apply to members of this community. Not an outside article. We should assume all users on hn honour the guidelines. We don't need to assume outside articles do.

akersten 5y ago

We are talking about deliberate security vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel, a piece of critical infrastructure. Frankly, this is not the place to assume good faith.

varajelle 5y ago
But they did not introduce security vulnerabilities as there prevented the bad patches from being merged
- Karunamon 5y ago
  Those measures were insufficient, as according to the developers, a number of the bogus patches were merged and had to be reverted.
  - varajelle 5y ago
    I think the kernel maintainer reverted all the patches coming from that university, regardless if they were bogus or not.
  - rincebrain 5y ago
    Sort of? The "hypocrite commits", according to the researchers' own paper, originated from "random Gmail addresses", and the researchers continue to claim none of those got merged (though since they haven't told us what they were, ...) The additional claim is that some of the commits not covered by their "hypocrite commits" (and thus, submitted from their UMN addresses) contained security bugs, deliberate or not, and the loss of trust in the researchers is sufficient to justify reverting all of their commits until they can be reviewed.

tdeck 5y ago

I think this response misses the point. The purpose of an apology is to make the recipient feel that you're sorry. That means thinking about how word choice is received is critical in crafting a good one. Your parent isn't saying the author's choice of words is in "bad faith", they're saying the author's word choice falls short of an effective apology due to a mistake that's common and easy to make. I agree, and I have done this myself in the past.

lynndotpy 5y ago
It seems like a nitpick to me, since the rest of the apology uses the proper choices of words, though. "The method used was inappropriate", "we made a mistake", etc. The apology is also specific about what they did wrong despite their intentions. It really is a good apology after reading past the first six words.
- Bootvis 5y ago
  ESL here. How correct is it to use ’any harm’ to mean ‘all harm’.
  - sings 5y ago
    There isn’t much difference and both are really correct. The problem with ‘any’ as raised here is the ambiguity. It could be taken to mean ‘any harm, if it occurred’ or ‘any single bit of harm that did occur’. So in this sense ‘all harm’ would be safer and less ambiguous.
  - mkl 5y ago
    Not correct, at least in this context. "Any harm" means there could be no harm, or some harm, but "all harm" admits there was harm. I.e. "any" is not an admission of doing harm, or an acceptance that it happened. If you want to apologise, "all harm" admits you caused harm, which seems necessary for an apology. "Any" is a bit like those "I'm sorry if you were offended" non-apologies, though in this case the rest of the message does better than that.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago

chris_wot 5y ago

That’s responding to comments on HN. This apology wasn’t on HN.

Griffinsauce 5y ago

> English might not be their first language (based on their name) This is a pretty weak assumption. Someone's name (and physical appearance) don't give you an accurate information about anything.

shard 5y ago
I don't think it's that weak of an assumption. First, considering all the people with foreign names in relevant groups (multinational corporations, or in this case, a researcher/ student at a university), I would say the chances that their first language is not English is high enough to be a consideration. And even if it is, there are also regional variations regarding what are common and accepted ways of phrasing things. Second, similar to the rule used here at HN, giving the text a more charitable read should be the starting point.

shkkmo 5y ago

I read it as a comment that was criticizing the language, not the intention of the apology. As such they are not inferring that the apology was insincere but pointing out language that in the apology that the posted has often added themselves that gives the appearance of insincerity of the recipient. To me that is the strongest possible interpretation of the comment you are replying to.

FridayoLeary 5y ago

those guidelines only apply to members of this community. Not an outside article. We should assume all users on hn honour the guidelines. We don't need to assume outside articles do.