4 ms·

> That's a ridiculous argument. Not making an argument. Asking a clarifying question about someone else’s. > It'd be like Boeing taking a child's paper aeropl

> That's a ridiculous argument. Not making an argument. Asking a clarifying question about someone else’s. > It'd be like Boeing taking a child's paper aeroplane design and making a passenger jet out of it and then blaming the child when it inevitably fails. Yes exactly. You are using the same example I used to say the same thing. So which part of my message was ridiculous?

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
If it's not an argument, then you're just misrepresenting your parent poster's comment by introducing a scenario that never happens. If you didn't intend your comment as a criticism, then you phrased it poorly. Do you actually believe that your scenario happens in reality?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  It was not a misrepresentation of anything. They were just restating the worry that was stated in the GP comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41892572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41892572 And the only reason the commenter I linked to had that response is because its parent comment was slightly careless in its phrasing. Probably just change “write” to “deploy” to capture the intended meaning.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > you're just misrepresenting your parent poster's comment I did not represent or misrepresent anything. I have asked a question to better understand their thinking. > If you didn't intend your comment as a criticism, then you phrased it poorly. Quite probably. I will have to meditate on it. > Do you actually believe that your scenario happens in reality? With railway bridges? Never. It would ring alarm bells for everyone from the fabricators to the locomotive engineer. With software? All the time. Someone publishes some open source code, someone else at a corporation bolts the open source code into some application and now the former “toy train bridge” is a loadbearing key-component of something the original developer could never imagine nor plan for. This is not theoretical. Very often I’m the one doing the bolting. And to be clear: my opinion is that the liability should fall with whoever integrated the code and certified it to be fit for some safety critical purpose. As an example if you publish leftpad and i put it into a train brake controller it is my job to make sure it is doing the right thing. If the train crashes you as the author of leftpad bear no responsibility but me as the manufacturer of discount train brakes do.

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago

If it's not an argument, then you're just misrepresenting your parent poster's comment by introducing a scenario that never happens. If you didn't intend your comment as a criticism, then you phrased it poorly. Do you actually believe that your scenario happens in reality?

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
It was not a misrepresentation of anything. They were just restating the worry that was stated in the GP comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41892572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41892572 And the only reason the commenter I linked to had that response is because its parent comment was slightly careless in its phrasing. Probably just change “write” to “deploy” to capture the intended meaning.
krisoft 2y ago
> you're just misrepresenting your parent poster's comment I did not represent or misrepresent anything. I have asked a question to better understand their thinking. > If you didn't intend your comment as a criticism, then you phrased it poorly. Quite probably. I will have to meditate on it. > Do you actually believe that your scenario happens in reality? With railway bridges? Never. It would ring alarm bells for everyone from the fabricators to the locomotive engineer. With software? All the time. Someone publishes some open source code, someone else at a corporation bolts the open source code into some application and now the former “toy train bridge” is a loadbearing key-component of something the original developer could never imagine nor plan for. This is not theoretical. Very often I’m the one doing the bolting. And to be clear: my opinion is that the liability should fall with whoever integrated the code and certified it to be fit for some safety critical purpose. As an example if you publish leftpad and i put it into a train brake controller it is my job to make sure it is doing the right thing. If the train crashes you as the author of leftpad bear no responsibility but me as the manufacturer of discount train brakes do.