3 ms·

A similar argument: If you look at the statistics, you’ll find that casual, condomless sex is very common. Despite the risks of STI transmission, it often pans

A similar argument: If you look at the statistics, you’ll find that casual, condomless sex is very common. Despite the risks of STI transmission, it often pans out okay: most STIs are readily curable, while HIV has a low transmission rate amongst heterosexual couples (about 0.08% to 0.2% per sexual act) while PrEP is pretty common for homosexual men, and HSV has fairly low odds of transmission outside of an active outbreak (annual odds of transmission amongst couples: about 11–17% for couples with a male source partner and 3–4% with a female partner). Consequently, many people who have casual, condomless sex with many, many partners will end up just fine. Is it reckless? Well, the connotation of “reckless” is fairly negative, and I don’t see why I should get to judge what two consenting adults decide is an acceptable risk vs reward for themselves (at least, so long as I’m not involved). However, when we pivot back to the domain of software/engineering: when software design choices are made via bandwagon fallacy, claiming that “it usually works out okay”, I do find that to be reckless. You may be fine with such a carefree approach, but it isn’t really fair to other engineers, users, and stake holders. It’s not that I believe JSON (or similarly pitfall-laden technology) should be strictly avoided, but rather that the risks and failure modes should be given serious consideration, rather than minimized or outright dismissed. In terms of the STI analogy, it’s perfectly reasonable for two individuals to be aware of the risks, and depending on their appetite for said risk, agree upon the inclusive/exclusive nature of their relationship, as well as whether they exchange test results; what would be ridiculous is to pretend that the risk of infection is zero. There would be zero value in the article minimizing the design flaws (and resulting footguns) in JSON. The insistence that the article should do so is about as bizarre as someone responding to an article on safer sex by insisting that the article be amended with a note that “… but raw-dogging strangers isn’t too risky anyway, so, like, YOLO”.

throw4847285 2y ago
I'm not sure if I should be impressed by your detailed knowledge of STI statistics or unnerved by your attempt to analogize unprotected sex to use of JSON. I'll split the difference and say, "what?"
- cstrahan 2y ago
  Hey, if you like living your life uninformed of the risks of your actions (or maybe it’s that the risks are irrelevant to you, if you’re not getting any?), you do you. I don’t know how I can help you understand the utility of analogies (you recognized the rhetoric as such, yet simultaneously seem stuck on the fact that analogies don’t establish a literal connection). However, I’m not sure if that’s actually the problem, or if you’re feigning confusion in attempt to offend me. Granted, it would seem an odd choice for you to claim incompetence as part of an attempted insult. Regardless, I’d be happy to help you in any way I can.
  - collingreen 2y ago
    They aren't claiming incompetence and you're being rude. Ironically there is some projection here about playing dumb since you're pretending you don't understand why getting and spreading sexually transmitted disease is a poor analogy to "using json". A good analogy needs more than just a slight parallel - it should have lots of significant parallels (and few significant misses) that help you think about the shape of the topic being discussed. You can hate json but pretending it is similar to infectious disease in cause, usage, value, solution, or expression makes it really ineffective at bringing people to your side since it's really hard to see any useful similarities which makes it seem like the whole point is just fluffed up "json bad" and "people not me are dumb". If you're actually happy to help in any way you can then stop being patronizing and either walk back your overly incendiary first shots or take a good faith attempt to clarify after someone pushes back on an intentionally extreme example.
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      > They aren't claiming incompetence and you're being rude. No they weren't. > Ironically there is some projection here about playing dumb since you're pretending you don't understand why getting and spreading sexually transmitted disease is a poor analogy to "using json". I don't understand why it would be a poor analogy, and I'm not pretending. (And I hope I'm not too dumb for real.) Please explain. > You can hate json but pretending it is similar to infectious disease in cause, usage, value, solution, or expression makes it really ineffective at bringing people to your side since it's really hard to see any useful similarities The obvious similarity I saw was "this has risks. Not huge risks, the sky isn't falling, but definitely not zero either, so it's useful to be informed about and explicitly acknowledge and weigh the risks." Am I dumb for seeing this similarity? Or for not finding it rude?
hombre_fatal 2y ago
For someone who wrote such an overwrought analogy, you should know that when you make an analogy, you can't analogize something that bakes in a conclusion on the thing up for debate. The problem with your analogy is that you chose something with serious undeniable consequences: STIs. The analogy doesn't work because the person above doesn't grant the severity of consequences of using JSON. So if you like health analogies, replace STIs with the common cold and explain how scary it is even though we've had the common cold hundreds of times and are well aware of its severity.
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > The problem with your analogy is that you chose something with serious undeniable consequences: STIs. Their thesis was that broken JSON also can have serious undeniable consequences, so there is no problem with the analogy AFAICS. > The analogy doesn't work because the person above doesn't grant the severity of consequences of using JSON. Yeah well, can't they be just plain wrong there?
hooverd 2y ago
What's YAML in this analogy?

throw4847285 2y ago

I'm not sure if I should be impressed by your detailed knowledge of STI statistics or unnerved by your attempt to analogize unprotected sex to use of JSON. I'll split the difference and say, "what?"

cstrahan 2y ago
Hey, if you like living your life uninformed of the risks of your actions (or maybe it’s that the risks are irrelevant to you, if you’re not getting any?), you do you. I don’t know how I can help you understand the utility of analogies (you recognized the rhetoric as such, yet simultaneously seem stuck on the fact that analogies don’t establish a literal connection). However, I’m not sure if that’s actually the problem, or if you’re feigning confusion in attempt to offend me. Granted, it would seem an odd choice for you to claim incompetence as part of an attempted insult. Regardless, I’d be happy to help you in any way I can.
- collingreen 2y ago
  They aren't claiming incompetence and you're being rude. Ironically there is some projection here about playing dumb since you're pretending you don't understand why getting and spreading sexually transmitted disease is a poor analogy to "using json". A good analogy needs more than just a slight parallel - it should have lots of significant parallels (and few significant misses) that help you think about the shape of the topic being discussed. You can hate json but pretending it is similar to infectious disease in cause, usage, value, solution, or expression makes it really ineffective at bringing people to your side since it's really hard to see any useful similarities which makes it seem like the whole point is just fluffed up "json bad" and "people not me are dumb". If you're actually happy to help in any way you can then stop being patronizing and either walk back your overly incendiary first shots or take a good faith attempt to clarify after someone pushes back on an intentionally extreme example.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    > They aren't claiming incompetence and you're being rude. No they weren't. > Ironically there is some projection here about playing dumb since you're pretending you don't understand why getting and spreading sexually transmitted disease is a poor analogy to "using json". I don't understand why it would be a poor analogy, and I'm not pretending. (And I hope I'm not too dumb for real.) Please explain. > You can hate json but pretending it is similar to infectious disease in cause, usage, value, solution, or expression makes it really ineffective at bringing people to your side since it's really hard to see any useful similarities The obvious similarity I saw was "this has risks. Not huge risks, the sky isn't falling, but definitely not zero either, so it's useful to be informed about and explicitly acknowledge and weigh the risks." Am I dumb for seeing this similarity? Or for not finding it rude?

hombre_fatal 2y ago

For someone who wrote such an overwrought analogy, you should know that when you make an analogy, you can't analogize something that bakes in a conclusion on the thing up for debate. The problem with your analogy is that you chose something with serious undeniable consequences: STIs. The analogy doesn't work because the person above doesn't grant the severity of consequences of using JSON. So if you like health analogies, replace STIs with the common cold and explain how scary it is even though we've had the common cold hundreds of times and are well aware of its severity.

CRConrad 2y ago
> The problem with your analogy is that you chose something with serious undeniable consequences: STIs. Their thesis was that broken JSON also can have serious undeniable consequences, so there is no problem with the analogy AFAICS. > The analogy doesn't work because the person above doesn't grant the severity of consequences of using JSON. Yeah well, can't they be just plain wrong there?

hooverd 2y ago

What's YAML in this analogy?