4 ms·

To all the commenters that I see here writing comments among the lines of "rules are rules and must be followed to the letter", I strongly suggest you to read t

by GTP 4y ago

To all the commenters that I see here writing comments among the lines of "rules are rules and must be followed to the letter", I strongly suggest you to read the book "Law for Computer Scientists and Other Folk" [1]. In one of the first chapters, it clearly explains that rules must be interpreted, and in doing so, one must take into account the specific situation a rule is being applied to. In this case, it seems quite clear to me that the intent of the rule was to prevent participants from using a tool that generates code for them, not to prevent them from using a version control system. So the real question to ask would be not if they used GitHub or not, but if they used it to generate HTML for their site or if they used it only for version control. In the former case, they deserve to be disqualified. In the latter, the rule doesn't apply. I think that the real lesson here is that if a rule is too subjective to interpretation, is better to discuss it beforehand, because even if you're right the person responsible for enforcing it could still get it wrong. [1] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/law-for-computer-scientists-and-other-folk-9780198860884?cc=nl&lang=en& https://global.oup.com/academic/product/law-for-computer-sci...

deanCommie 4y ago
> "rules are rules and must be followed to the letter" When I see this kind of blind obedience to authority I get absolutely terrified. I've lived through the Soviet Union (aside: which is why it's extra hilarious when HN posters who disagree with me think i'm a communist because I have "commie" in my username), I've spoken to people who lived through the after-effects of Nazi Germany. And our industry is at the forefront of so much of soceital development. Computer Scientists already have to make endless conscientious decisions about privacy, robotics, facial recognition, and how our tech is used or not used to perpetuate repression and discrimination. And it's only going to get worse with the rise of AI. So to see so many technologists just shrug and say "The rule said no GitHub" makes me terrified for how they critically evaluate (or don't) the requirements put in front of them for what they implement, and what it means for our dystopian future. It's also infuriating that "critical thinking" and "healthy distrust of authority" have become appropriated by the alt-right to spread COVID vaccine conspiracy theories, and at this point I even hesitate to say things like advocating for "challenging authority" because the concept has bene politicized to mean "challenge thinking for the benefit of your community and society instead of your own individual wants", or even more simply "challenge the left/progressives".
justin_oaks 4y ago
> I think that the real lesson here is that if a rule is too subjective to interpretation, is better to discuss it beforehand, because even if you're right the person responsible for enforcing it could still get it wrong. This is definitely a good idea. Sadly, it's all to common to discuss things beforehand and STILL have an enforcer get it wrong. You could talk to the person responsible for writing the rules, but since the enforcers are different people with different interpretations, you can still get denied. Even between two different enforcers you could get different results. It's unfair, it's sad, but that's the world we live in.

by GTP 4y ago

deanCommie 4y ago

> "rules are rules and must be followed to the letter" When I see this kind of blind obedience to authority I get absolutely terrified. I've lived through the Soviet Union (aside: which is why it's extra hilarious when HN posters who disagree with me think i'm a communist because I have "commie" in my username), I've spoken to people who lived through the after-effects of Nazi Germany. And our industry is at the forefront of so much of soceital development. Computer Scientists already have to make endless conscientious decisions about privacy, robotics, facial recognition, and how our tech is used or not used to perpetuate repression and discrimination. And it's only going to get worse with the rise of AI. So to see so many technologists just shrug and say "The rule said no GitHub" makes me terrified for how they critically evaluate (or don't) the requirements put in front of them for what they implement, and what it means for our dystopian future. It's also infuriating that "critical thinking" and "healthy distrust of authority" have become appropriated by the alt-right to spread COVID vaccine conspiracy theories, and at this point I even hesitate to say things like advocating for "challenging authority" because the concept has bene politicized to mean "challenge thinking for the benefit of your community and society instead of your own individual wants", or even more simply "challenge the left/progressives".

justin_oaks 4y ago

> I think that the real lesson here is that if a rule is too subjective to interpretation, is better to discuss it beforehand, because even if you're right the person responsible for enforcing it could still get it wrong. This is definitely a good idea. Sadly, it's all to common to discuss things beforehand and STILL have an enforcer get it wrong. You could talk to the person responsible for writing the rules, but since the enforcers are different people with different interpretations, you can still get denied. Even between two different enforcers you could get different results. It's unfair, it's sad, but that's the world we live in.