3 ms·
I'd rather prefer people saying "C has a long history of damaging security" and that's it, no asbestos here. Is a personal preference of mine. Less chances to m
by tryauuum 4y ago
I'd rather prefer people saying "C has a long history of damaging security" and that's it, no asbestos here. Is a personal preference of mine. Less chances to misinterpret something.
At least it's not a "comparing Linux kernel to a car" situation I've also seen.
- rcarr 4y agoI’ve never compared the Linux kernel to a car but I wouldn’t necessarily throw it out as a useful analogy for two reasons: - 1: sometimes we have to learn simplified but faulty models in order to understand the more complex and more accurate models - 2: Everyone sees the world in different ways. It is often through combining these different viewpoints (or analogies) that we arrive at something closer to the objective truth. This is eloquently illustrated in the [Blind men and an elephant parable](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant). The moral of the parable isn’t that we should throw away all analogy because it can be misinterpreted. The moral is, as Wikipedia puts it: > The parable has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly, the parable implies that one's subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behaviour of experts in fields of contradicting theories, the need for deeper understanding, and respect for different perspectives on the same object of observation.