3 ms·
Well yes, maybe they should have put more people on it, from day one. But even though they have solid funding, doesn't mean they can throw it out the window. A
by hutzlibu 5y ago
Well yes, maybe they should have put more people on it, from day one. But even though they have solid funding, doesn't mean they can throw it out the window.
And non reproducible bugs can be hard, even when you throw money at them.
But your quote was almost a textbook example of selective quoting, because you said, that they said they did a quick fix, when it really took over 6 months. But they did not say this - they said "once they pick up the scent" they delivered a quick fix. This is something very different.
- tylermenezes 5y ago"But even though they have solid funding, doesn't mean they can throw it out the window." This is a product which is advertised as private, marketed extensively toward people requiring privacy. Knowing they're accidentally sending images to the wrong people is a HUGE, priority 1 problem.
- hutzlibu 5y ago"Knowing they're accidentally sending images to the wrong people is a HUGE, priority 1 problem." It is. But I have no insight in all the other problems and bugs they have. Do you? There is never a guarantee of total safety. So focusing all the ressources on one problem that happens extremeley rarely and miss out a bigger problem, that affects millions? But I don't know if this was the case here. Might also be neglect or not wanting to spread the image of Signal as being non-secure, while in a path of growth.