Where possible I recommend not caring because figuring out whether malice was present is difficult and you can likely address a problem without needing to be sure.
For example by creating working processes which never end up "accidentally" causing awful outcomes. This is sometimes more expensive, but we should ensure that the resulting lack of goodwill if you don't is unaffordable.
Worst case there is malice and you've now made it more difficult to hide the malice so you've at least made things easier for those who remain committed to looking for malice, including criminal prosecutors.
>Worst case there is malice and you've now made it more difficult to hide the malice so you've at least made things easier for those who remain committed to looking for malice, including criminal prosecutors.
i am quoting the maintainer of the project. take it up with them if you think microsoft coordinated a directed attack on their project.
I think you're missing the point of the person you're replying to.
It's really easy to end up with procedural machinery that makes it unpleasant for other entities that you don't like.
It seems to get the things that you do like and value less often. Why? Because you think about the consequences to what you consider important and you're inclined to ignore potential consequences to those you oppose or are competing with.
The Vogons weren't necessarily overtly malicious when they obliterated Earth.
"hostage speaks well of hostage-taker"
if you think i am defending microsoft, your hatred has blinded you to what my comments are actually saying.
Why would I think that? That isn't a sensible conclusion from what I posted. I think you replied to the wrong post
Regardless of what the maintainer says of their abuser after being abused, the point I think you are getting stuck on is this:
Creating a system which locks you out if you don't speak to a human isn't de-facto malicious.
Having support where you can't speak to a human isn't de-facto malicious, either.
Doing both at the same time, however, is de-facto malicious. Some executives likely got bonuses for doing it, too.
you said "hostage speaks well of hostage-taker" in response to my comment.
i interpreted that as you saying i am the hostage of microsoft, and have stockholm syndrome, therefor am speaking well of (defending) microsoft.
if i misinterpreted that, my bad. are you calling jason the hostage?
Yes, the maintainer continues to be held hostage by Microsoft, so it is no surprise that they don't publicly denounce Microsoft or ascribe ill intent or in any way speak ill of Microsoft.
my bad for misinterpreting your comment.