3 ms·

And the person you are responding is asserting that the response to incompetence of this level should be the SAME as if it directed and intentional malice. Whic

And the person you are responding is asserting that the response to incompetence of this level should be the SAME as if it directed and intentional malice. Which is a completely valid way to view a fuckup like this.

john_strinlai 6mo ago
>response to incompetence of this level should be the SAME sure. but this was not a deliberate attack by microsoft employees to shutdown wireguard. that is what i was trying to say and the essence of the quote in question.
- acedTrex 6mo ago
  They are saying that "deliberate attack" or not does not matter and is not worth pointing out. The response is the same so its a worthless point.
  - john_strinlai 6mo ago
    whether something is a deliberate attack or not is not worth pointing out? its, like, the only thing worth pointing out. if microsoft is deliberately targeting projects and literally attacking them, that would be huge fucking news. like crazy news. lawsuits galore.
    - acedTrex 6mo ago
      > whether something is a deliberate attack or not is not worth pointing out? Correct in cases like this we are discussing it as a meaningless distinction.
- direwolf20 6mo ago
  Microsoft drove a truck through a school yard at 150mph. It was not a deliberate attack, it was just the fastest route and their map says there's a highway there. Is it malice? A certain level of recklessness is automatically malice.
  - john_strinlai 6mo ago
    >[...] It was not a deliberate attack [...] in that case, it certainly wouldnt be called a deliberate attack, right? the edit in my original comment should hopefully clear up any confusion of my intended point. and, well... the comment you replied to should also make it clear that my entire point is centered around something being deliberate attack vs. ridiculous incompetence. the deliberateness of it is the entirety of the reason i wrote my comment. choosing the phrase "malice vs. incompetence" was a poor choice on my part, when i should have been extremely explicit. it would have avoided all of this back-and-forth.

john_strinlai 6mo ago

>response to incompetence of this level should be the SAME sure. but this was not a deliberate attack by microsoft employees to shutdown wireguard. that is what i was trying to say and the essence of the quote in question.

acedTrex 6mo ago
They are saying that "deliberate attack" or not does not matter and is not worth pointing out. The response is the same so its a worthless point.
- john_strinlai 6mo ago
  whether something is a deliberate attack or not is not worth pointing out? its, like, the only thing worth pointing out. if microsoft is deliberately targeting projects and literally attacking them, that would be huge fucking news. like crazy news. lawsuits galore.
  - acedTrex 6mo ago
    > whether something is a deliberate attack or not is not worth pointing out? Correct in cases like this we are discussing it as a meaningless distinction.
direwolf20 6mo ago
Microsoft drove a truck through a school yard at 150mph. It was not a deliberate attack, it was just the fastest route and their map says there's a highway there. Is it malice? A certain level of recklessness is automatically malice.
- john_strinlai 6mo ago
  >[...] It was not a deliberate attack [...] in that case, it certainly wouldnt be called a deliberate attack, right? the edit in my original comment should hopefully clear up any confusion of my intended point. and, well... the comment you replied to should also make it clear that my entire point is centered around something being deliberate attack vs. ridiculous incompetence. the deliberateness of it is the entirety of the reason i wrote my comment. choosing the phrase "malice vs. incompetence" was a poor choice on my part, when i should have been extremely explicit. it would have avoided all of this back-and-forth.