4 ms·

This makes me angry. Not just the story itself, but the way VF goes about telling it, which commits the same sins (albeit with better intent) as Goldman Sachs.

This makes me angry. Not just the story itself, but the way VF goes about telling it, which commits the same sins (albeit with better intent) as Goldman Sachs. "So-called 'subversion repository'?" Why don't we just accuse him of summoning demons while we're at it?

danielweber 13y ago
Michael Lewis is a great writer about economics. He appears to have gotten out of his depth here.
- GeneralMayhem 13y ago
  Wow, I don't know why the name didn't register. Yeah, he's spectacular when writing about economics or sports.
freyr 13y ago
Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I think the author's emphasizing that the term itself sounds like damning evidence to anyone who doesn't know better, since subversion means "a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within." He's pointing out that agent used such terms without understanding them (or exploited the public's ignorance to make their case). That's why he put it in quotes. Lewis goes on to explain, later in the article, that subversion repositories are commonly used and aren't evil. He could have explicitly spelled out that the term subversion relates to version control, but I think he explained it adequately enough given the intended audience.
- shubb 13y ago
  To be fair to the agent, I think uploading company code to your private third party repository is pretty bad. Especially if you are thinking (later in the article, quoting the programmer), 'they wouldn't like it', 'it was like speeding, in a stolen car'.
  - gknoy 13y ago
    Oh, I agree, but the point the article seemed to be making was that the agent thought it was fishy that the name of the repo was "subversion", rather than "github" or "bobs-useless-code-dump". It was a complete misunderstanding of what was important (storing code elsewhere), and an ascribing of malicious intent ("subversive") to it.
rtkwe 13y ago
(For that specific instance at least) Read the start of that paragraph again. That's supposed to be the FBI agent trying to describe what happened and being completely flummoxed by the use of subversion that doesn't line up with the dictionary definition. > 'Then he explained what he knew, or thought he knew:...'
stdgy 13y ago
I thought that was supposed to be sarcastic, poking fun at the terminology as viewed from the non-tech savvy jury and FBI agents. Though, as always, that's not an easy thing to tell online.

danielweber 13y ago

Michael Lewis is a great writer about economics. He appears to have gotten out of his depth here.

GeneralMayhem 13y ago
Wow, I don't know why the name didn't register. Yeah, he's spectacular when writing about economics or sports.

freyr 13y ago

Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I think the author's emphasizing that the term itself sounds like damning evidence to anyone who doesn't know better, since subversion means "a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within." He's pointing out that agent used such terms without understanding them (or exploited the public's ignorance to make their case). That's why he put it in quotes. Lewis goes on to explain, later in the article, that subversion repositories are commonly used and aren't evil. He could have explicitly spelled out that the term subversion relates to version control, but I think he explained it adequately enough given the intended audience.

shubb 13y ago
To be fair to the agent, I think uploading company code to your private third party repository is pretty bad. Especially if you are thinking (later in the article, quoting the programmer), 'they wouldn't like it', 'it was like speeding, in a stolen car'.
- gknoy 13y ago
  Oh, I agree, but the point the article seemed to be making was that the agent thought it was fishy that the name of the repo was "subversion", rather than "github" or "bobs-useless-code-dump". It was a complete misunderstanding of what was important (storing code elsewhere), and an ascribing of malicious intent ("subversive") to it.

rtkwe 13y ago

(For that specific instance at least) Read the start of that paragraph again. That's supposed to be the FBI agent trying to describe what happened and being completely flummoxed by the use of subversion that doesn't line up with the dictionary definition. > 'Then he explained what he knew, or thought he knew:...'

stdgy 13y ago

I thought that was supposed to be sarcastic, poking fun at the terminology as viewed from the non-tech savvy jury and FBI agents. Though, as always, that's not an easy thing to tell online.