3 ms·

No no no no no. You don’t seek a dialogue after, figuratively speaking, putting a gun to someone’s head. Hell no, you don’t say it was a joke when the gun misf

No no no no no. You don’t seek a dialogue after, figuratively speaking, putting a gun to someone’s head. Hell no, you don’t say it was a joke when the gun misfires. They seek dialogue today, and tomorrow some beancounter from the legal department will pull this shit again to get their quarterly bonus. Heck, a company may have a written promise to never do stupid shit and then they renege on it because they feel like it. Publish code under a non-revocable license like GPL, then we talk. In the meantime, fuck Haier, fuck their legal department, fuck their PR team, and fuck the air conditioner they rode in on.

tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago
On one hand, I agree. On the other hand, many companies act badly without realizing it and genuinely try to better themselves after understanding why what they did was wrong. (This is particularly common with security reports, with a threatening response first then a more reasonable response once someone who knows how to properly handle disclosures talks to management.) There needs to be a balance - if there are no consequences for getting it wrong initially, many companies will try the bad way first and only backtrack when they get caught, but if we apply the standard that there is no possibility of redemption, a company would have no incentive to improve once they screwed up the first time.
- WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
  How many misfires like this should happen before a whole generation of managers learns to not do that even once? How should I be sure that the company won’t reverse its course and sue me right back retroactively? There had been cases of the same companies doing several oopsie-daisies in a row. I can only be sure they can and will pull that shit again and again, and having done this once is proof enough. The parable of the frog and the scorpion exists for a reason. The only way a company may do something to prove they mean it is to do something they really cannot back away from by any reasonable means, not without paying a devastating cost. And thus my point above about Haier still stands.

tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago

On one hand, I agree. On the other hand, many companies act badly without realizing it and genuinely try to better themselves after understanding why what they did was wrong. (This is particularly common with security reports, with a threatening response first then a more reasonable response once someone who knows how to properly handle disclosures talks to management.) There needs to be a balance - if there are no consequences for getting it wrong initially, many companies will try the bad way first and only backtrack when they get caught, but if we apply the standard that there is no possibility of redemption, a company would have no incentive to improve once they screwed up the first time.

WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
How many misfires like this should happen before a whole generation of managers learns to not do that even once? How should I be sure that the company won’t reverse its course and sue me right back retroactively? There had been cases of the same companies doing several oopsie-daisies in a row. I can only be sure they can and will pull that shit again and again, and having done this once is proof enough. The parable of the frog and the scorpion exists for a reason. The only way a company may do something to prove they mean it is to do something they really cannot back away from by any reasonable means, not without paying a devastating cost. And thus my point above about Haier still stands.