I found the article highly sensationalist, opinionated, guilt-planting and clickbaity.
Andreas is complaining, basically, that people who were con to Contracts raised their issues, where they detailed that Contracts was ill-defined / insufficient / bad / problematic™ or whatever; they were rejected… and then things simply continued to the next available phase, where people were allowed to vote. And they voted No. Because they had issues. At no point were the con people “refusing to accept their loss” as Andreas words it, the voting process was still legally ongoing.
Like, what was Andreas expecting? That the con people betrayed themselves and surrendered themselves before the voting phase was reached? Consider: that’s how we got stuck with stuff like std::random.
I found the article highly sensationalist, opinionated, guilt-planting and clickbaity.
Andreas is complaining, basically, that people who were con to Contracts raised their issues, where they detailed that Contracts was ill-defined / insufficient / bad / problematic™ or whatever; they were rejected… and then things simply continued to the next available phase, where people were allowed to vote. And they voted No. Because they had issues. At no point were the con people “refusing to accept their loss” as Andreas words it, the voting process was still legally ongoing.
Like, what was Andreas expecting? That the con people betrayed themselves and surrendered themselves before the voting phase was reached? Consider: that’s how we got stuck with stuff like std::random.