Comment by mustaphah
2 months ago
> You're all extremely clever and I can't seem to understand how you missed thinking about such a simple edge case [...]
I wouldn't be surprised if they left this loophole on purpose to give some (their?) agents extra leverage.
Edit #1: I didn't mean to imply bad intent; just thinking out loud.
Edit #2: Please, downvote responsibly. I deserve every one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FHEeG_uq5Y
> I didn't mean to imply bad intent
> I wouldn't be surprised if they left this loophole on purpose
You didn't imply bad intent, you outright suggested it.
He means he doesn't say it was necessarily bad intent, but mentions it as a possibility ("thinking out loud").
Thinking out loud isn't a free pass to say stuff without consequences. Sure we are all protected under free speech, but free speech doesn't remove the meaning and the impact words have in the world.
I could've phrased it better.
You could rewrite it a 1000 times, if the underlying idea is the same, suggesting something you don't know it's true, the outcome would be the same. Or did you mean something else? What was your intention with the message?
8 replies →
never attribute something to malice which can be attributed to incompetence. Basically, this has been utilized plenty of times by some really smart folk to get what they want.
We absolutely did not.
Of course that's what a team that did it on purpose would also say :)