3 ms·

> there are junior devs out there who could've easily done this and your response to them is "get gud scrub". Because junior devs should remain incompetent for

> there are junior devs out there who could've easily done this and your response to them is "get gud scrub". Because junior devs should remain incompetent forever. I’m pretty sure GitHub did display what permissions the app was requesting. The user should have been alerted and refused to proceed as soon as it requested more than ‘Access user email addresses (read-only)’, as nothing else should be required just for SSO. The user’s inattentiveness is their problem. But sure, blame GitHub every time, even when they explicitly tell you the operation entails irreversible loss of data and have you manually retype the repository name.

jasonlotito 4y ago
> even when they explicitly tell you the operation entails irreversible loss of data and have you manually retype the repository name. This is proof that inattentiveness is something developers should account for. Otherwise, GH could just have easily slapped a modal that said "Are you sure?"
pdonis 4y ago
> I’m pretty sure GitHub did display what permissions the app was requesting. I don't understand why "sign in with GitHub" should grant any permissions whatever. "Sign in" doesn't mean "grant this website permission to use my github identity". It means "have github confirm my identity to this website". To me this is both the website's and GitHub's fault for abusing what "sign in" means. The website shouldn't be asking for permissions in this scenario, and GitHub shouldn't be giving them.
phendrenad2 4y ago
> “But the plans were on display…” > “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” > “That’s the display department.” > “With a flashlight.” > “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” > “So had the stairs.” > “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” > “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.” "The plans were on display" isn't an 100% ironclad argument, because there are two contracts taking place: The literal contract being presented to the user, and the social compact that the user expects if they are reasonable. So, if you show a dire warning to a user, in a place where they are unlikely to expect a dire warning, it's your own damn fault if they ignore it. After all, they aren't expecting it. It's up to you to educate them and prepare them for receiving such a warning. I'm sure the legal world has some name for this. Probably similar to "how small can you make fine print before it becomes legally unenforceable". "But your honor, the user ONLY needs buy a 10,000x magnifier, and the legalese is plain as day!" Yeah, not gonna cut it, buster.

jasonlotito 4y ago

> even when they explicitly tell you the operation entails irreversible loss of data and have you manually retype the repository name. This is proof that inattentiveness is something developers should account for. Otherwise, GH could just have easily slapped a modal that said "Are you sure?"

pdonis 4y ago

> I’m pretty sure GitHub did display what permissions the app was requesting. I don't understand why "sign in with GitHub" should grant any permissions whatever. "Sign in" doesn't mean "grant this website permission to use my github identity". It means "have github confirm my identity to this website". To me this is both the website's and GitHub's fault for abusing what "sign in" means. The website shouldn't be asking for permissions in this scenario, and GitHub shouldn't be giving them.

phendrenad2 4y ago

> “But the plans were on display…” > “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” > “That’s the display department.” > “With a flashlight.” > “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” > “So had the stairs.” > “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” > “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.” "The plans were on display" isn't an 100% ironclad argument, because there are two contracts taking place: The literal contract being presented to the user, and the social compact that the user expects if they are reasonable. So, if you show a dire warning to a user, in a place where they are unlikely to expect a dire warning, it's your own damn fault if they ignore it. After all, they aren't expecting it. It's up to you to educate them and prepare them for receiving such a warning. I'm sure the legal world has some name for this. Probably similar to "how small can you make fine print before it becomes legally unenforceable". "But your honor, the user ONLY needs buy a 10,000x magnifier, and the legalese is plain as day!" Yeah, not gonna cut it, buster.