3 ms·
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. You're the person who wrote it would be mandated, and now you're admitting it's a ridiculous position to tak
by xnorswap 3y ago
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. You're the person who wrote it would be mandated, and now you're admitting it's a ridiculous position to take.
If you have some point to make please do so earnestly. Layering in levels of irony makes any point you're trying to make difficult to understand or follow, even if labelled with /s.
This is going off-topic, but there is a style of internet arguing that I have come to seriously dislike. It is one where instead of someone making a point, they make the point they wish to detract and simply flag that they are being ironic. In doing so they don't actually advance the point they're trying to make, they assume that the audience already understands and is sympathetic to that point, so they simply put up a target to scoff at.
I'm not sure if that's what you're doing here, or if you're just struggling to make a point about worrying about government intrusion into private business.
- marcosdumay 3y agoI guess the GP is trying to say that those languages will enter the compliance checklist of some unavoidable rule, and that recommendation will turn into an effective mandate. What is a quite real possibility. For example, there are plenty of places out there that can't stop expiring passwords every 1 or 3 months because it's in one of those lists. But I do agree that complaining about the recommendation because of this is completely out of topic, the focus should be on the rule that actually mandates it.