3 ms·

Please do so. "Absolutely possible" is showing me you are way too confident of things and this usually is a sign you actually never done so.

saurik 4y ago
The idea that you believe that a system I am saying shouldn't be built will somehow have a bug in it despite not existing is ridiculous. I will once again repeat, therefore, with more context: I am not claiming one should or can build systems without mistakes... I am claiming that, because we make mistakes--and because we all know that we all (including myself) make mistakes--we should not build certain kinds of systems, and that building systems that put us in a position where making mistakes cause these kinds of effects "is the malice". Regardless, if it IS a mistake, we can assume Twitter will offer a formal apology indicating that they made a mistake that accepts fault for the impact it had on others, explain how they think that mistake occurred in enough detail that we can agree that it was a mistake and not an excuse, they will take steps to prevent that similar mistake from happening in the future, and they will further attempt to "make it right" somehow to the mastadon community (particularly so, as this was a competitor) with some extra benefit or concession... right? I will note that going around making mistakes and neither apologizing for them not taking responsibility for them--instead just flippantly hiding behind "we all make mistakes" while continuing to put yourself in a position where your mistakes matter to people--is itself a malicious act.
- zaroth 4y ago
  Every feature has a complexity burden it imposes on the overall system, and also a risk profile to causing failures as the overall environment changes. Some features are definitely not worth the complexity they impose. Sometimes a feature is so important you need to add it despite the systemic risk that it obviously carries. Most of the time the designer or implementer doesn’t stop to even consider this analysis and just fires off some code to add the feature and lets it become “technical debt” because it’s SEP at that point. The best engineers have an immediate intuition about these types of features and a visceral reaction when asked to code them. Something along the lines of, “I have a bad feeling about this” to “No way I’m coding this, it’s a metaphorical bridge just waiting to collapse.” If malice requires intent I think most of the time there isn’t actual malice. If malice can stem from ignorance then I fully agree with you.

saurik 4y ago

The idea that you believe that a system I am saying shouldn't be built will somehow have a bug in it despite not existing is ridiculous. I will once again repeat, therefore, with more context: I am not claiming one should or can build systems without mistakes... I am claiming that, because we make mistakes--and because we all know that we all (including myself) make mistakes--we should not build certain kinds of systems, and that building systems that put us in a position where making mistakes cause these kinds of effects "is the malice". Regardless, if it IS a mistake, we can assume Twitter will offer a formal apology indicating that they made a mistake that accepts fault for the impact it had on others, explain how they think that mistake occurred in enough detail that we can agree that it was a mistake and not an excuse, they will take steps to prevent that similar mistake from happening in the future, and they will further attempt to "make it right" somehow to the mastadon community (particularly so, as this was a competitor) with some extra benefit or concession... right? I will note that going around making mistakes and neither apologizing for them not taking responsibility for them--instead just flippantly hiding behind "we all make mistakes" while continuing to put yourself in a position where your mistakes matter to people--is itself a malicious act.

zaroth 4y ago
Every feature has a complexity burden it imposes on the overall system, and also a risk profile to causing failures as the overall environment changes. Some features are definitely not worth the complexity they impose. Sometimes a feature is so important you need to add it despite the systemic risk that it obviously carries. Most of the time the designer or implementer doesn’t stop to even consider this analysis and just fires off some code to add the feature and lets it become “technical debt” because it’s SEP at that point. The best engineers have an immediate intuition about these types of features and a visceral reaction when asked to code them. Something along the lines of, “I have a bad feeling about this” to “No way I’m coding this, it’s a metaphorical bridge just waiting to collapse.” If malice requires intent I think most of the time there isn’t actual malice. If malice can stem from ignorance then I fully agree with you.