We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!
-
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Look, something is either a mistake or not.
True.
You either call it a mistake and not tolerate it, or you call it, I don't know, a boo-boo and let it slide.
Maybe. That’s not what I’m talking about. You’re skipping a step:
- See a mistake.
- Think about why this mistake was made.
- Decide what to do about the mistake.
Just make up your fucking mind and stop misusing words.
Just open your fucking eyes and stop thinking everything is straightforward.
BTW, would you care to learn you made a grammatical mistake in that last sentence
Yes.
You missed “the” before “mistake”.
-
@japonicus said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Tsaukpaetra said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Didn't you know? Murder investigations merely increase tolerance for murder. 🔪
Probably true to some extent. All sorts of nuanced classifications of homicide have been invented along with several different defences, whereas historically murder was murder
This is true for pretty much any law or other rule you care to name: after a while, nuances need to be made to cover new situations it doesn’t quite cover or new ways of thinking that weren’t around when the rule was made.
-
Here's a reason I want to be more hostile to my users:
- Bug discovered!
investigates, opens a ticket with how to reproduce by making 4 changes in a particular part of the system, fixes bug, deploys to a testing environment with old production data:luser:That exact data from production isn't in our testing environment. The data needs to be moved over.-
-
@boomzilla said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Here's a reason I want to be more hostile to my users:
Bug discovered!- investigates, opens a ticket with how to reproduce by making 4 changes in a particular part of the system, fixes bug, deploys to a testing environment with old production data
:luser:That exact data from production isn't in our testing environment. The data needs to be moved over.-
Enough said.
-
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
How does merely understanding the reason increase mistake tolerance?
Because from human history it appears to me that people are more likely to tolerate something they already understand / are familiar with?
They're also more likely to avoid something if they already understand/are familiar with.
Do you really cannot comprehend that someone might want to understand the reasons something happens without also wanting for this thing to happen more often? You know, like epidemiology? Knowing the reason might allow you to contain the issue and prevent it from spreading.
And then there are things like murder and rape, do you really need to know why every specific person would make such a "mistake" to know it is not acceptable and should be condemned?
I don't need to know the reasons to know it's not acceptable. But I (or rather we as a society) need to know the reasons to know how to prevent more of it happening in the future.
You forgot an article before "mistake" in the last sentence.
Now if you want to learn the reason why I made such a lame mistake, that's because I originally wanted to write "mistakes" but changed my mind half-way through, and forgot to add an article. Now tell me, does my previous sentence sound like an excuse?
Depends. Are you using it as a justification why it wasn't so bad any why calling it out is an asshole move? Or are you trying to notice patterns in your behavior and correct for them?
Because that's what it is. It serves no purpose other than trying to justify what I did, and doesn't correct a mistake nor guarantee I won't be making the same mistake again.
Well, if you learned your lesson and from now on spent the extra effort to make sure that before clicking "submit", all the singular nouns have an appropriate article, then it would actually prevent making the same mistake again (at least most of the time). Finding out reason is only bad because you decided to use it for a bad thing. It could be used for a good thing, but you decided otherwise.
Before we get distracted further -- the point of what I was saying earlier is that why people from around Nis and Leskovac are making the mistake with cases is irrelevant. It's a fucking mistake, even foreign scholars of Serbian language understand it as such. Why can't you just accept it as a fact instead of playing their advocate and digging for "reasons" for bad grammar?
I do accept it as a fact. I just find it interesting why such an obvious mistake is so prevalent. There are many different factors at play - region, ethnic origin, wealth, job, age (because it determines the ever changing teenage slang and also the school curriculum, which has large impact on what they learned), and various other things.
-
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Therefore, trying to understand the reason for a mistake is an undesirable behavior which leads to a change of outcome in an observed system -- it turns a mistake into a non-mistake.
So, we must never investigate the cause of plane crashes, car accidents, train derailments, or nuclear reactor accidents. Because investigating the causes can't lead to preventing future mistakes, only to excusing the previous ones. Of course, "investigations" can be and sometime are used to excuse mistakes, but to claim that nothing should be investigated because understanding is inherently an excuse, which is essentially what you wrote, is absurd.
-
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
If you are capable of recognizing something as a mistake, then you have already decided what to do with it -- what to do with a mistake is usually declared along with a pattern for recognizing something as a mistake.
That’s two separate steps you’re rolling into one.
Therefore, steps 2 and 3 are unnecessary and serve only for you to feel more important by having your independent say on something society already defined.
There are perfectly legitimate reasons for saying, “This here is a mistake, but I’m going to let it stand because <raisins>.” By not thinking about why the mistake was made but immediately skipping to, “It’s wrong and should be corrected” you’re not even considering the possibility that what looks like a mistake may have very good reasons for having happened.
Say you drive your car through a red light. This is a mistake (I’m sure we can agree on), and if there’s a traffic camera there, you’ll get fined for it. By your reasoning so far, everyone who drives a car through a red light will get fined — end of discussion.
Now, what if you drove your car through the red light in order to make way for a fire engine (that had lights and sirens on)?
-
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
They're also more likely to avoid something if they already understand/are familiar with.
Those who want to understand already know and avoid mistakes.
Those who should understand, they don't or don't want to.Just to be clear - are you talking generally about all kinds of mistakes here, or specifically about broken Serbian grammar some people use?
Let's say you are making traffic violation of running a red light. You get a fine and you know you did wrong but you don't care and you do it again until you either kill someone or lose your driver's license. How is my understanding of your reasons for running through red light going to improve anything?
If this is a very common theme among people, and if you're a person who can do something about it (e.g. local government, or something), then learning the reasons behind people's behavior might let you reorganize intersections such that it's harder to miss the red light (if the reason is insufficient visibility) or there's no reason to run the red light anymore (if the reason is something that can be removed), or maybe use some alternative intersection design that doesn't need lights at all.
I don't need to know the reasons to know it's not acceptable. But I (or rather we as a society) need to know the reasons to know how to prevent more of it happening in the future.
See, that was the whole point, he was insisting that he needs to know why is using wrong cases a mistake.
No, you completely misunderstood. No one questioned whether it's a mistake in the first place. Trying to figure out a reason had nothing to do with whether it's a mistake.
Depends. Are you using it as a justification why it wasn't so bad any why calling it out is an asshole move? Or are you trying to notice patterns in your behavior and correct for them?
How about what sociopaths already do? Pretend to learn from your mistake and downplay it so it looks benign, and then repeat it later when no one is paying attention so you don't get caught?
Is this what you're doing? Well, who am I to question someone's self-assessment as a sociopath.
Well, if you learned your lesson and from now on spent the extra effort to make sure that before clicking "submit", all the singular nouns have an appropriate article, then it would actually prevent making the same mistake again (at least most of the time).
I am already making extra effort by proofreading one more time after posting and editing to fix any mistakes I find. Sometimes they slip through and unless you want to make them have less weight then my reason (be it tired, nervous, having a bad day, blinded by alcohol, stoned, having out of body experience, having hand tremors while typing, having a broken keyboard) is not important.
If the reason is one of the reasons you listed, then yes, there's not really any corrective action. But if the reason was something else - say, not even being aware of the rules governing use of articles - then identifying the reason would've been very helpful to you. And we don't know what the reason is - and whether it can be fixed or not - until we find out the reason.
I do accept it as a fact. I just find it interesting why such an obvious mistake is so prevalent. There are many different factors at play - region, ethnic origin, wealth, job, age (because it determines the ever changing teenage slang and also the school curriculum, which has large impact on what they learned), and various other things.
How about something simple as not having someone to correct you every time you do it until you stop? You know, like with people who can't bother to differentiate between your and you're, its and it's, etc and call people who correct them grammar Nazis?
Yes, it might be a reason too. And knowing this is the reason is essential to find out the solution to how to make the mistake not happen anymore - have someone correct you every time you do it until you stop.
@HardwareGeek said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
So, we must never investigate the cause of plane crashes, car accidents, train derailments, or nuclear reactor accidents. Because investigating the causes can't lead to preventing future mistakes, only to excusing the previous ones. Of course, "investigations" can be and sometime are used to excuse mistakes, but to claim that nothing should be investigated because understanding is inherently an excuse, which is essentially what you wrote, is absurd.
Don't twist my words, I haven't said "never investigate anything" -- I said "don't waste time trying to look for reasons for a behavior which society already agreed is a mistake".
So, "never investigate anything that's known to be a mistake". Like train derailments. Because train derailments never happen except by mistake.
-
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
If this is a very common theme among people, and if you're a person who can do something about it (e.g. local government, or something), then learning the reasons behind people's behavior might let you reorganize intersections such that it's harder to miss the red light (if the reason is insufficient visibility) or there's no reason to run the red light anymore (if the reason is something that can be removed), or maybe use some alternative intersection design that doesn't need lights at all.
Let's assume I am just a curious forum member and have no say over anything, especially in another country. Then what?
Then, if I understand you correctly, you should shut the fuck up and don't ever talk about it because it's a mistake and mistakes are not to be analyzed because the only possible outcome of analyzing a mistake is the mistake will happen more often.
No one questioned whether it's a mistake in the first place. Trying to figure out a reason had nothing to do with whether it's a mistake.
Sorry, but if I am not mistaken @Gurth was arguing from the moment I mentioned wrong cases that it maybe wasn't a mistake and it's just a dialect and that's how all this nonsense argument started.
Yes, he just did. He didn't previously (I double checked before making last post just to be sure), but he did now. Go all out on him. He destroyed my beautiful argument.
But if the reason was something else - say, not even being aware of the rules governing use of articles - then identifying the reason would've been very helpful to you.
From everything else I wrote here you could have seen that I have a pretty solid command of written English language so it was very likely that I was aware of the rule.
Honestly? There are a few quirks in your speech patterns that make it very obvious you're not a native speaker.
Pointing my mistake served only to distract from what I wrote.
Unfortunately for you, I can keep up with all threads of this conversation just fine.
So, "never investigate anything that's known to be a mistake". Like train derailments. Because train derailments never happen except by mistake.
Mistake -- an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong.
Accident -- an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.What is a derailment in your opinion? Mistake or accident?
An accident caused by a mistake. If something happened due to someone running a red light (which is undoubtedly a mistake, even you agree that much), it would also be an accident caused by a mistake.
-
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
And we don't know what the reason is - and whether it can be fixed or not - until we find out the reason.
+1
-
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
You are the one who wants to waste time knowing their "raisins".
We should not waste time knowing raisins. We should simply eat them.
-
@HardwareGeek said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
We should not waste time knowing raisins. We should simply eat them.
I'm also happy if they're added to granola. Tasty raisins and good crunch to go with 'em.
-
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
What is a derailment in your opinion? Mistake or accident?
Perhaps both. Accidents are often a result of mistakes. A derailment might be caused by running through an improperly set switch. Or excessive speed. Or carelessness. Or inadequate maintenance. Unless it was just plain bad luck, which is unlikely, there may be measures that can be taken to make similar accidents less likely — which I'm sure we'd all agree is a desirable thing — but without understanding the cause, we cannot know whether those measures actually exist and what they are.
-
@HardwareGeek said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Unless it was just plain bad luck, which is unlikely
Often you need bad luck to compound the mistakes into an accident.
-
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
There are a few quirks in your speech patterns that make it very obvious you're not a native speaker.
The quirks are in his (?) writing patterns. There are likely quirks in his (?) speech patterns, too, but since most likely none of us have ever heard him (?) speak, we cannot judge from them. That said, he does have a good command of written English, but it is also evidently not his (?) native language.
-
@HardwareGeek Everyone has characteristic ways of writing, and they're almost always shaped by what their native tongue is (or at least what languages they have a lot of practice in). Having had to clean up a lot of documents written by various European colleagues over the years, it was always anyone's guess as to whether the Poles or the Italians would mangle things worse, though it was far more marked for older generations than my own.
-
@dkf said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@HardwareGeek said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
We should not waste time knowing raisins. We should simply eat them.
I'm also happy if they're added to granola. Tasty raisins and good crunch to go with 'em.
Oatmeal, added while the oatmeal is cooking, so they rehydrate.
Biryani. I'm not sure of the exact definition of biryani, but I made a vaguely biryani-like dish of brown rice, bell peppers, carrots, peas, raisins, and I don't remember what else — I just threw stuff together without any sort of recipe — I think the raisins made the dish.
Filed under: Cooking thread is
-
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
No one questioned whether it's a mistake in the first place. Trying to figure out a reason had nothing to do with whether it's a mistake.
Sorry, but if I am not mistaken @Gurth was arguing from the moment I mentioned wrong cases that it maybe wasn't a mistake and it's just a dialect and that's how all this nonsense argument started.
Yes, he just did. He didn't previously (I double checked before making last post just to be sure), but he did now. Go all out on him. He destroyed my beautiful argument.
I haven’t been following this subthread, but what did I do?
I haven’t changed my point of view that what’s wrong by one set of rules may not be wrong by another. The running a red light example has nothing to do with that — that’s to illustrate that a mistake can have a good reason even when it is a mistake.
-
@Gurth my whole argument was based on that everyone agrees misusing Serbian in such ways is wrong and condemnable regardless of reason. You just made an argument that sometimes reasons can change whether it should be condemned.
-
@Gąska That’s been my argument all along: what these people speak may be incorrect standard Serbian, but correct for the dialect they speak.
-
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Unfortunately for you, I can keep up with all threads of this conversation just fine.
No wonder you can't do anything useful in your life.
So you don't just know my personality and work ethics - you also know my entire life story! Your psychic abilities are truly astounding.
If something happened due to someone running a red light (which is undoubtedly a mistake, even you agree that much), it would also be an accident caused by a mistake.
To run the red light you must do a wrong, misguided action on purpose, so any consequences from such an action can't really be accidental anymore.
For someone so well versed in English language, you have a really weird idea of what an accident is.
Before you say "what if your brakes are broken?" -- it's also on you for not maintaining and checking the brakes and deciding to drive in a vehicle which is unfit for driving.
Now, look at train derailment. What are the possible reasons? Going too fast on a curve is most common. It can be either due to driver running the train too fast (deliberate action on his part = not an accident, according to you), or due to brakes malfunction not slowing it enough (obviously insufficient maintenance, so again, not an accident, according to you), or maybe the rails were damaged (once more, insufficient maintenance = not an accident, according to you), or maybe there was a fault in the design of the train or the shape of the rails (someone deliberately made those designs - so not an accident, according to you), or maybe the train and the rails are fine but only the top speed was set wrong for that section, either in plans or on signs (someone deliberately put those wrong signs and someone deliberately made those wrong plans, even though they most likely weren't aware they're wrong - still, not an accident, according to you). Or there might've been some other reason for derailment, but it almost always comes down to human errors too - so still not an accident, according to you. See the problem yet?
-
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Gąska said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
or maybe the rails were damaged (once more, insufficient maintenance = not an accident, according to you)
If the rails were damaged recently (i.e. between train's departure and arrival to the damaged part it is an accident.
No it's not. They were only damaged because someone damaged them. Alternatively, the damage was from the environment (particularly hot or cold weather, for example) - but it only resulted in damage because someone fucked up the material compisition or the assembly, or some other part of the process that was supposed to protect it from environment (or the process itself didn't consider some factor that turned out to be critical, and guess what - someone is responsible for that too!) It's human error all the way down! Nothing is ever an accident!
If someone responsible knew about the damage then it's not an accident anymore (except in the outcome).
Here's the thing. Accident only describes the outcome. Always. Accident is every unintended consequence of an action. Even if the action itself was deliberate. That's how English language works.
or maybe there was a fault in the design of the train or the shape of the rails
Designs are tested both in simulators and in real life so no. Try again.
There have been cases of bugs in simulators, as well as cases of improper "real life" testing procedures. Just because something passed tests doesn't mean it's bug-free. As an experienced software developer, you should be very aware of that.
or maybe the train and the rails are fine but only the top speed was set wrong for that section, either in plans or on signs
I think driver still has a say in top speed of the train -- if he knows it might be unsafe he can go slower and risk only to be late and punished for that instead of killing 200 people.
What if he doesn't know? You realize that the safe speed is different on different sections of tracks? That curves are much slower to go on safely than straight lines? It can take over a kilometer for the train to slow down. They can't just go by what they see to adjust the speed - they need to know much much earlier. If the plans are wrong, the driver is powerless against the slower section of tracks. Is it an accident then? I mean, someone has deliberately written and distributed the wrong versions of the plans, even though they might've not been aware that they're wrong.
-
@HardwareGeek said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
So, we must never investigate the cause of plane crashes, car accidents, train derailments, or nuclear reactor accidents.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
-
@boomzilla said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@HardwareGeek said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
So, we must never investigate the cause of plane crashes, car accidents, train derailments, or nuclear reactor accidents.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
I'm going to assume this is a leading question, rather than that you missed the sarcasm dripping from my post.
The difference it makes, of course, is that by learning the cause, we may be able to prevent similar accidents in the future. Case in point, 737 MAX. The FAA, NTSB, etc. aren't investigating the crashes to excuse them. The investigation so far has revealed at least two or three design flaws in the aircraft, an effort to hide the differences between the MAX and its predecessors, and inadequate pilot training as a result of trying to make it seem similar. One of the design problems is probably too intrinsic to the plane to correct, but the others can be fixed sufficiently to make the planes safe, despite the remaining problem.
Far from excusing the accidents, I expect the investigation to lead to heavy fines against Boeing and huge lawsuits from the victims' families, on top of the cost of fixing the planes and retraining pilots. Without the investigation, I'd expect more crashes.
-
@HardwareGeek said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Far from excusing the accidents, I expect the investigation to lead to heavy fines against Boeing and huge lawsuits from the victims' families, on top of the cost of fixing the planes and retraining pilots.
I also expect it to lead to substantially greater costs for US aircraft manufacturers in the future, or at least those looking to secure orders for planes certified to fly outside of US airspace, as other regulators in the area will probably be a lot slower to trust the FAA's competence in the area.
-
@HardwareGeek said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@boomzilla said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@HardwareGeek said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
So, we must never investigate the cause of plane crashes, car accidents, train derailments, or nuclear reactor accidents.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
I'm going to assume this is a leading question
I would expect no less from you.
-
Not to mention, those Mayday: Air Crash Investigation episodes won't write themselves.
-
@HardwareGeek said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@boomzilla said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@HardwareGeek said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
So, we must never investigate the cause of plane crashes, car accidents, train derailments, or nuclear reactor accidents.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
I'm going to assume this is a leading question, rather than that you missed the sarcasm dripping from my post.
FYI - it was neither. Just quoting a politician.
-
@dkf said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@HardwareGeek Everyone has characteristic ways of writing, and they're almost always shaped by what their native tongue is (or at least what languages they have a lot of practice in). Having had to clean up a lot of documents written by various European colleagues over the years, it was always anyone's guess as to whether the Poles or the Italians would mangle things worse, though it was far more marked for older generations than my own.
Based on my own experience, I'd say you could also make a pretty good guess as to whether a particular bit of second-language English was written by a Pole or an Italian. (I am more familiar with how the French mangle English than any other nationality doe, obviously, but each ESL nationality does it in a different way.)(1)
(1) So much so that I sat down with the guy responsible for the text in the web GUI of our product recently, with one window showing it in French and another in English, with the idea of reviewing all the translations(2). It was enlightening - between us we found weirdness in the English version (the company is French...), or in the French version, or even in both at the same time. In at least one case, both were wrong, and the wrongness didn't match because there was also a mistranslation.
(2) I had found some weird translations in a few places, and thought it would improve the product's usability if we hunted down any other ones.
-
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Yes, good point, the case demonstrates exactly what I am saying -- that wasting time and money on a root cause analysis is pointless when everything is already known:
Boing knew the plane flew worse compared to original 737 and tried to cover up with software
Boing knew better than to use one sensor (no redundancy) for safety critical feature
Boing knew AoA sensors are prone to failure yet they decided to sell AoA diagree indicator as a DLC
Boing knew that not training pilots and telling them about new system was dangerous
Boing knew that changing the way something works after 30+ years is going to confuse peopleBoeing might have know all that, but the FAA and the airlines that bought the planes didn't. Without the root cause analysis, Boeing could tell everyone it was human error and avoid changing the practices that led to the crashes.
Now that so much of it has come to light, they will be fined, possibly lose market share, and in general be provided a number of incentives to avoid that level of fuckery in the future. It's by exposing that level of assholery that you deal with it, not by just punishing the first person you think would have been responsible. Assholes are pretty good at covering themselves with scapegoats when they know there won't be serious investigations.
-
@levicki so just murder people who might not be responsible or in a position to do anything about the problem, or who might have been set up by enemies? And who would be wielding the gun and deciding who is responsible? And what if the people with the gun make a mistake, who goes and kills them?
-
China has pretty much implemented "levicki's justice". Strangely enough, it doesn't work that well in practice.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
I'd say you could also make a pretty good guess as to whether a particular bit of second-language English was written by a Pole or an Italian.
You just need to see if the text includes "Mamma mia!"
-
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@Zerosquare said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
China has pretty much implemented "levicki's justice". Strangely enough, it doesn't work that well in practice.
Hey it works well enough for them. They are a new super-power.
Nope, pretty far away from superpower.
-
@Zerosquare said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
China has pretty much implemented "levicki's justice". Strangely enough, it doesn't work that well in practice.
It's a pretty well-known concept throughout history. Usually the families of the offending person are the first targets - it regularly depends on the benevolence of the party in power how much of the family tree is subjected to shootings / re-education / prison / labour camps.
-
@izzion said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Why Aren't People Abandoning Windows For Linux? - Slashdot
This weekend SlashGear published "Reasons to Abandon Windows For Linux," making their case to "Windows users who are curious about the state of Linux for mainstream computing." It tries to enumerate specific reasons why Linux might be the better choice, arguing among other things that: Updates on...
The beatings will continue until the Linux is adopted!
That post was from a month ago and they're still trotting out the same old tired claims as to why Linux is somehow better for everyone.
-
A month? They've been doing that for 20 years.
-
@Zerosquare said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
A month? They've been doing that for 20 years.
That's what I was getting at. The claims are even funnier now since Linux has had 20 years to spread into the cluster fuck that it is now. The claim about Windows updates is even sillier than before. Yeah, when you run Windows updates...it ONLY updates Windows...not all the other 3rd party software on my machine...because why the hell would I want Microsoft to do that? Also their updates come from only one source.
EDIT: The one about malware is just stupid. So are they asking for more people to use so it can become a larger target of malware? The claim is misleading anyway. There is plenty of stuff constantly trying to attack Linux servers. And they get compromised all the time because of shitty software.
-
@levicki said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Yes, good point, the case demonstrates exactly what I am saying -- that wasting time and money on a root cause analysis is pointless when everything is already known:
Boing knew the plane flew worse compared to original 737 and tried to cover up with software
Boing knew better than to use one sensor (no redundancy) for safety critical feature
Boing knew AoA sensors are prone to failure yet they decided to sell AoA diagree indicator as a DLC
Boing knew that not training pilots and telling them about new system was dangerous
Boing knew that changing the way something works after 30+ years is going to confuse peopleNone of those things is a root cause.
Root cause is HUMAN GREED."If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." —Carl Sagan
Which is to say: you're being retarded. Even if we agree with you, there's no way to solve that.
So once again, what analysis and understanding is going to do to prevent greed and other abhorrent human behaviors?
Who gives a shit? We're trying to prevent plane crashes. Once again: stop being retarded.
-
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Yeah, when you run Windows updates...it ONLY updates Windows...not all the other 3rd party software on my machine...because why the hell would I want Microsoft to do that?
It's short sighted thinking like that which gave such genious software as Java's updater, etc, etc, etc.
-
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
when you run Windows updates...it ONLY updates Windows...not all the other 3rd party software on my machine...because why the hell would I want Microsoft to do that?
I have some bad news for you:
-
@boomzilla said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Yeah, when you run Windows updates...it ONLY updates Windows...not all the other 3rd party software on my machine...because why the hell would I want Microsoft to do that?
It's short sighted thinking like that which gave such genious software as Java's updater, etc, etc, etc.
Why is this short sighted? The fact that Java is garbage has nothing to do with Windows updates only worrying about Microsoft's software. And yeah, I know they have their own app store now...I don't use it, nor do I have to.
-
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@boomzilla said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Yeah, when you run Windows updates...it ONLY updates Windows...not all the other 3rd party software on my machine...because why the hell would I want Microsoft to do that?
It's short sighted thinking like that which gave such genious software as Java's updater, etc, etc, etc.
Why is this short sighted? The fact that Java is garbage has nothing to do with Windows updates only worrying about Microsoft's software. And yeah, I know they have their own app store now...I don't use it, nor do I have to.
Can you explain why the OS providing a way to check for application updates is such a terrible thing. I've got nothing. But the lack of it has lead to a jillion shitty updater apps that eat up resources and generally suck ass.
-
@TimeBandit said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
when you run Windows updates...it ONLY updates Windows...not all the other 3rd party software on my machine...because why the hell would I want Microsoft to do that?
I have some bad news for you:
I know. I'm not an ancient grey beard (yet) that hasn't been keeping up with trends...but I also don't have to like them.
-
@boomzilla said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@boomzilla said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Yeah, when you run Windows updates...it ONLY updates Windows...not all the other 3rd party software on my machine...because why the hell would I want Microsoft to do that?
It's short sighted thinking like that which gave such genious software as Java's updater, etc, etc, etc.
Why is this short sighted? The fact that Java is garbage has nothing to do with Windows updates only worrying about Microsoft's software. And yeah, I know they have their own app store now...I don't use it, nor do I have to.
Can you explain why the OS providing a way to check for application updates is such a terrible thing. I've got nothing. But the lack of it has lead to a jillion shitty updater apps that eat up resources and generally suck ass.
I agree on the fact that 3rd parties seem to not be able to develop update checkers well for some reason (not all though)....when they are pretty damn simple.
I have no problems with an OS checking for updates and letting me know there are updates to 3rd party software. That of course assumes all involved actually abide by some standard and actually use it. What I don't like is it automatically updating 3rd party software without my knowledge. Especially when some piece of software goes from one major version to another and you have to verify that it won't break anything. Updating software isn't always as easy as just hitting the update button. Programmers should know this just from having to update their dev tools and the headaches you have to deal with migrating projects from one version of your tools to another.
-
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
I have no problems with an OS checking for updates and letting me know there are updates to 3rd party software. That of course assumes all involved actually abide by some standard and actually use it. What I don't like is it automatically updating 3rd party software without my knowledge.
So...we actually agree. But I can't reconcile this with your previous statement.
-
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
What I don't like is it automatically updating 3rd party software without my knowledge.
I'm always told what package needs an update. and I can update only specific packages if I want.
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
Programmers should know this just from having to update their dev tools and the headaches you have to deal with migrating projects from one version of your tools to another.
because you work with Microsoft tools
-
@boomzilla said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
I have no problems with an OS checking for updates and letting me know there are updates to 3rd party software. That of course assumes all involved actually abide by some standard and actually use it. What I don't like is it automatically updating 3rd party software without my knowledge.
So...we actually agree. But I can't reconcile this with your previous statement.
I think the difference would in the type of software you are referring to maybe. I'm a programmer and have been for over 27 years and a gamer for longer. Most of the software on my personal computer consists of development tools and games.
@TimeBandit said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
I'm always told what package needs an update. and I can update only specific packages if I want.
To which software are you referring?
@TimeBandit said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
because you work with Microsoft tools
Only Visual studio and only because I'm currently using Torque3D for game development. Most of the other stuff I do I use Delphi which allows me to develop for Windows, Mac and Linux. To each their own though. Shit also gets weird when you are dealing with licensed software.
-
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@boomzilla said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
I have no problems with an OS checking for updates and letting me know there are updates to 3rd party software. That of course assumes all involved actually abide by some standard and actually use it. What I don't like is it automatically updating 3rd party software without my knowledge.
So...we actually agree. But I can't reconcile this with your previous statement.
I think the difference would in the type of software you are referring to maybe. I'm a programmer and have been for over 27 years and a gamer for longer. Most of the software on my personal computer consists of development tools and games.
I don't see how would resolve the contradiction between saying you both have and don't have problems with an OS checking for updates.
-
@CodeJunkie said in We need to be more user hostile to help them embrace freedom!:
To which software are you referring?
Debian Package Manager
I use Delphi which allows me to develop for Windows, Mac and Linux.
Can you target Linux desktop with it now?
Last time I checked you couldn't
Selby rail crash - Wikipedia
