4 ms·

An example of such a command came up on Linus Tech Tips (LTT), from apt (IIRC) on Pop_OS!. Basically (paraphrasing) "this will destroy your system and render it

An example of such a command came up on Linus Tech Tips (LTT), from apt (IIRC) on Pop_OS!. Basically (paraphrasing) "this will destroy your system and render it useless; type 'I'm an idiot and wish to proceed'". Our eponymous youtuber went right on, typed the phrase and blitzed the system, and then moaned about how the system shouldn't have let him break it ... I suspect such prompts only work for cautious people, who possibly don't need the prompts as they'll actually read the scary warnings.

rcxdude 4y ago
In his defense, it was literally the first package he tried to install, which was in the official repositories but horribly broken, so he had no real way to tell whether this was the normal flow and linux just made it really irritating to install packages.
- glandium 4y ago
  And the more relevant error message was buried in the scrollback, IIRC.
renewiltord 4y ago
That guy is a savvy YouTuber, man. He did that because the resulting content has high memetic replication properties. I find the prompt for dangerous ops useful. GitHub will ask you to repeat the name of the repo before you destructive actions, Terraform will ask you to say yes to the prompt. These are all good things.
- Grimburger 4y ago
  It's a solid practice in UX design. Physically having to type or copy/paste it in really highlights the action for the end user. There's only so much you can do to stop people setting their own house on fire but something like that puts the onus on them and fairly places the blame where it belongs.
  - andrewaylett 4y ago
    The problems start when you know you want to light a house on fire, but you pick the wrong house. It's almost never the case that blaming the user is actually going to help nor that adding more eyeballs will prevent people from making mistakes. If it's routine, we'll apply it to the wrong entity. If it's not routine, we'll not understand all the implications of our actions.
    - adwn 4y ago
      Some actions have to be irreversible by design (think: emptying the trash to free up space on your drive, or deleting sensible user data). At some point, someone has to greenlight that action, and the best you can do is trying to ensure the user is aware of what they're about to do – and you have to trust that they're using their brain for once. You know, that thing in your head which distinguishes you from that thing sitting in the metal box under your desk... If it were possible to automate that decision in a flawless, 100% safe and correct way, there'd be no need for a human to press the button.
      - andrewaylett 4y ago
        Life definitely has one-way gates, but tech can avoid them a lot more than we do today. Soft deletes and backups give a time-bound undo period to user actions, and so freeing up space on my drive isn't irreversible. Also, to stretch the analogy I used further: one way to avoid lighting one's own house on fire by mistake is to not make the things you light on fire look like houses. In the case above, and in many other cases (like the big Atlassian outage earlier this year) the problem wasn't so much that the user was deliberately deleting important stuff, it's that they couldn't tell the difference between the class of unimportant things they thought they were deleting from and the class of important things they would stop and think long and hard about before deleting.
  - ivan_gammel 4y ago
    UX is not about putting the blame on someone, but to prevent errors. For this reason confirmations are not really the best practice. Sure, they reduce the number of mistakes by some margin, but they never get it 100%. The better alternative will be instead of asking for confirmation to ask to explain the intent by picking one of the options or writing it down. Ideally, an alternative must be suggested. This will avoid automatic reaction, because there's no one clear path to the goal.
- adamhp 4y ago
  Yet there was some popular HN post a few months ago about someone complaining that GitHub didn't do enough to stop them...
yaddaor 4y ago
It's a person who gets paid by views. They did this for the attention.

rcxdude 4y ago

In his defense, it was literally the first package he tried to install, which was in the official repositories but horribly broken, so he had no real way to tell whether this was the normal flow and linux just made it really irritating to install packages.

glandium 4y ago
And the more relevant error message was buried in the scrollback, IIRC.

renewiltord 4y ago

That guy is a savvy YouTuber, man. He did that because the resulting content has high memetic replication properties. I find the prompt for dangerous ops useful. GitHub will ask you to repeat the name of the repo before you destructive actions, Terraform will ask you to say yes to the prompt. These are all good things.

Grimburger 4y ago
It's a solid practice in UX design. Physically having to type or copy/paste it in really highlights the action for the end user. There's only so much you can do to stop people setting their own house on fire but something like that puts the onus on them and fairly places the blame where it belongs.
- andrewaylett 4y ago
  The problems start when you know you want to light a house on fire, but you pick the wrong house. It's almost never the case that blaming the user is actually going to help nor that adding more eyeballs will prevent people from making mistakes. If it's routine, we'll apply it to the wrong entity. If it's not routine, we'll not understand all the implications of our actions.
  - adwn 4y ago
    Some actions have to be irreversible by design (think: emptying the trash to free up space on your drive, or deleting sensible user data). At some point, someone has to greenlight that action, and the best you can do is trying to ensure the user is aware of what they're about to do – and you have to trust that they're using their brain for once. You know, that thing in your head which distinguishes you from that thing sitting in the metal box under your desk... If it were possible to automate that decision in a flawless, 100% safe and correct way, there'd be no need for a human to press the button.
    - andrewaylett 4y ago
      Life definitely has one-way gates, but tech can avoid them a lot more than we do today. Soft deletes and backups give a time-bound undo period to user actions, and so freeing up space on my drive isn't irreversible. Also, to stretch the analogy I used further: one way to avoid lighting one's own house on fire by mistake is to not make the things you light on fire look like houses. In the case above, and in many other cases (like the big Atlassian outage earlier this year) the problem wasn't so much that the user was deliberately deleting important stuff, it's that they couldn't tell the difference between the class of unimportant things they thought they were deleting from and the class of important things they would stop and think long and hard about before deleting.
- ivan_gammel 4y ago
  UX is not about putting the blame on someone, but to prevent errors. For this reason confirmations are not really the best practice. Sure, they reduce the number of mistakes by some margin, but they never get it 100%. The better alternative will be instead of asking for confirmation to ask to explain the intent by picking one of the options or writing it down. Ideally, an alternative must be suggested. This will avoid automatic reaction, because there's no one clear path to the goal.
adamhp 4y ago
Yet there was some popular HN post a few months ago about someone complaining that GitHub didn't do enough to stop them...

yaddaor 4y ago

It's a person who gets paid by views. They did this for the attention.