4 ms·
Without Thomas taking an action - speaking - the bug would remain undiscovered. I think that counts.
by 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
Without Thomas taking an action - speaking - the bug would remain undiscovered. I think that counts.
- ethbr0 5y agoCan affirm. I also often discover bugs by speaking.
- jldugger 5y agoThe trick is to not speak for seven years first tho.
- D13Fd 5y agoI disagree. I thought the article's title was misleading. It was Justice Thomas's name that uncovered the bug, if anything. Justice Thomas himself had nothing to do with it other than his name.
- conradev 5y agoThat to me is him triggering the bug, not discovering it
- pohl 5y agoThis thread reminds me of a relevant comic: http://synd.imgsrv.uclick.com/comics/nq/2015/nq150718.gif http://synd.imgsrv.uclick.com/comics/nq/2015/nq150718.gif
- Brian_K_White 5y agoHe caused the bug to be exposed to another, he did not discover it, as he did not know there was a bug or that he had any sort of relation with it. He was part of a phenomenon, someone else was the observer and discoverer of the phenomenon. The lab rat did not discover rna. However, the title says "uncovered" not discovered, and as someone else pointed out you could parse the title as referring merely to the text string and not the person. Those 2 things do kinda make it at least arguable. I think this title would make it through court on a technicality!
- amf12 5y agoMore accurate title could have been: "Justice Clarence Thomas speaking after 7 years uncovered..".