3 ms·

> The meaning of "bear's service" originally comes from a fable about a man and a bear. The bear wanted to help the man by killing a gnat which sat on his foreh

> The meaning of "bear's service" originally comes from a fable about a man and a bear. The bear wanted to help the man by killing a gnat which sat on his forehead. As a result both the gnat and the man died. Basically, by being proactive you do more damage as if you didn't do anything.

Intermernet 2y ago
Thanks for the explanation. I'll try to be less proactive, I guess...
- vetinari 2y ago
  Proactive is fine, if you know what is the overall impact. There's another: proactive idiot is worse than the class enemy[1]. [1] "Class enemy" or "třídní nepřítel" (cz) might be an unknown term in itself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people#Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people#Soviet_Uni...
  - Intermernet 2y ago
    Ok, apparently I can now reply to this comment... Weird HN delays aside. I don't care if the people who can decrypt Telegram chats are allied with any one side or another. I believe the idea of "Class enemy" to be abhorrent, and the moral / social threats of "the overall impact" to be negligible when compared to the fact that using compromised communications platforms will inevitably lead to greater problems than the act of calling them out. This is the equivalent of "You'll keep quiet if you know what's good for you". If Telegram is broken, certain people need to stop using it. The socio-political climate of the areas most likely to be using Telegram just makes this more urgent. This applies independent of if / how / why it's broken, and who, if anyone, may benefit from this.
Intermernet 2y ago
Replying to this, as I can't reply to your down-thread reply for some reason. What if the gnat isn't a gnat? What if the gnat is another man who now knows the communications of the first man? I'm not saying the Bear should kill both, but I'm pointing out that the analogy falls apart when the gnat isn't just a mildly annoying third party.

Intermernet 2y ago

Thanks for the explanation. I'll try to be less proactive, I guess...

vetinari 2y ago
Proactive is fine, if you know what is the overall impact. There's another: proactive idiot is worse than the class enemy[1]. [1] "Class enemy" or "třídní nepřítel" (cz) might be an unknown term in itself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people#Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people#Soviet_Uni...
- Intermernet 2y ago
  Ok, apparently I can now reply to this comment... Weird HN delays aside. I don't care if the people who can decrypt Telegram chats are allied with any one side or another. I believe the idea of "Class enemy" to be abhorrent, and the moral / social threats of "the overall impact" to be negligible when compared to the fact that using compromised communications platforms will inevitably lead to greater problems than the act of calling them out. This is the equivalent of "You'll keep quiet if you know what's good for you". If Telegram is broken, certain people need to stop using it. The socio-political climate of the areas most likely to be using Telegram just makes this more urgent. This applies independent of if / how / why it's broken, and who, if anyone, may benefit from this.

Intermernet 2y ago

Replying to this, as I can't reply to your down-thread reply for some reason. What if the gnat isn't a gnat? What if the gnat is another man who now knows the communications of the first man? I'm not saying the Bear should kill both, but I'm pointing out that the analogy falls apart when the gnat isn't just a mildly annoying third party.