5 ms·
Something may be bad, but accurately describing why it is bad significantly elevates the discourse. Eg, someone could use the phrase "Won't someone think of th
by compiler-guy 6mo ago
Something may be bad, but accurately describing why it is bad significantly elevates the discourse.
Eg, someone could use the phrase "Won't someone think of the children?" to describe a legitimately bad thing like bank fraud, but the solutions that flow from the problem that "children are in danger" are significantly different from the solutions that flow from "phishing attacks are rampant".
The two issues in this case aren't quite as different as child-endangerment and bank fraud. But if the problem was as the original title describes, the solution is quite different (better sandboxing) than what the actual solution is. Which I don't know, but better sandboxing ain't it.
- justonceokay 6mo agoSo technically correct. Got it
- ImPostingOnHN 6mo agoattacking people for having more nuance and accuracy than you have is how polarization and tribal epistemology happens 'ignore the facts! ENEMY!!!' generally doesn't end well for anybody
- cindyllm 6mo ago[dead]