4 ms·
> My argument is that when you are doing failure analysis that you have to look at the different ways things can fail (I am considering both, and both have been
by burntsushi 2y ago
> My argument is that when you are doing failure analysis that you have to look at the different ways things can fail (I am considering both, and both have been in all my examples).
Lmao. I've done this. That's my whole point! I've weighed it against the upsides of filtering by default. And I have legions of users who like those defaults.
Your comments are filled with the conceit of certainty instead of acknowledging trade offs. Your comments are so incredibly condescending.
- godelski 2y agoHow about attacking my argument instead of my character?
- burntsushi 2y agoI'm not attacking your character. I'm criticizing your chosen words and communication style. I was extremely careful about that. If you can't fix that, I don't see us moving forward. I'm pointing it out because I perceive your comments as carrying the implication that I'm not doing "real" engineering, given your ranting about programmers these days not being taught how to model "when things go wrong." The idea that I didn't do that is insulting. Besides, I've raised several points that you've completely ignored from my perspective as well. So engaging with you further seems pointless. I will continue to advocate in favor of making bold UX choices by looking at trade offs.