undefined | Better HN

0 pointssoraminazuki5mo ago0 comments

You take issue with me using 148 words in my comment? Just 8 hours before you wrote that, you spent more words than I did downplaying problems with AI powered mass surveillance cameras. Are rules something you live by or something that you arbitrarily impose on others?

It’s telling that you can write multiple paragraphs claiming the moon is made of cheese while expecting others to communicate only in brief, misleading soundbites.

0 comments

yawaramin5mo ago

It's a yes or no question.

soraminazukiOP5mo ago

The term you're looking for is a loaded question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Changing passwords was the responsible course of action to protect Ruby users in light of the attack. Maintainers should act in the interest of the Ruby community, not in favor of usurpers with a vendetta.

tptacek5mo ago

I love that you had to link to the Wikipedia question for "loaded question" for this. So you're saying, the answer is "yes": he logged into the root account, after he lost access to his own account, and changed the root password. OK then!

Here's what I think: people are starting from a sympathetic principle (independent community-minded maintainers are better that corporations) and working their way back to what they've decided must have happened. The person we're talking about here tried to (quietly!) monetize the server logs for RubyGems. Don't even try to play the "that's what RubyCentral says" card --- they published the email.

The world doesn't always line up with the most sympathetic principles.

4 more replies

kmacdough5mo ago

A question that was already asked and answered. The only reason to re-ask seems to be to pull it from context and apply black/white arguments to a complex sociopolitical event.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse