4 ms·

I don't think in the current climate "having a zero-repercussions way out" is an unreasonable thing to want. Heck, I don't think merely having an incorrect take

I don't think in the current climate "having a zero-repercussions way out" is an unreasonable thing to want. Heck, I don't think merely having an incorrect take on a technical issue is something that should ever warrant "repercussions", unless it's intentionally claimed from a position of authority. But more than that I think these silly single use websites are just gold marketing. They're very memorable, I don't think we'd have collectively remembered the "motherfucking website" if it was just a blog, for instance. It's a bit daft, but what can you do.

zxzax 5y ago
There is no such thing as "zero repercussions way out" here, and it seems to make no sense to even want that in this context. Either the bugs are real and they get fixed, or they don't and now the project looks bad; if for whatever reason the bugs turned out to not be an issue, that would be the only time it wouldn't matter in the end. If the author isn't actively working with upstream to get them fixed, and isn't announcing that association with the project, it's probably safe to say they don't have a position of authority within that project.