Fine. Consider your point made. I’ll use some other metaphor or allusion to express “don’t willy-nilly change systems you don’t understand”. Many people just do that, out of ignorance, stupidity, or hubris. I’ve seen a lot of software people delete “useless” code that caused problems later.

Humans are social creatures. Facts don’t matter. Emotions and social belonging matter. So people who are just immersed in trump-stuff are going to think it’s all normal and good, and reject contrary facts from the out group.

This is part of why right wing media is so dangerous. It feeds the in-group solidarity

People need to stop voting for him and those like him. Unfortunately , the GOP is full of people who vote for trash

Good. Now fire the people who said it was a good idea and promote the internal people who said it was bad

I assumed it was a counter to the implicit idea that Israel is eternal and timeless and just a fact of life, rather than something that started in living memory

I’m reminded of that meme of the cartoon girl going “this sign won’t stop me because I can’t read”

I’ve had coworkers that changed some code, then just deleted the tests that started failing. Then they get annoyed their PR is blocked by more attentive coworkers.

If we switch the argument to being about diverting a watercourse, or regrading land, it suddenly falls apart because it becomes clear that these things do not exist for intelligent reasons.

This is not a compelling analogy. Many things in nature may not exist for an intelligent reason, but their presence matters in ways that may not be obvious. Diverting a waterway may cause tremendous damage to the ecosystem and other downstream (pun intended) things. That is an excellent example of why you should understand the current system before attempting to change it.

I don’t think it’s a bad idea to try and understand the world or to mitigate risks when making changes. I think chesterton’s fence is a shite argument because it implies that everything which exists has a planned purpose and favours the status quo which may be intoler

I don’t think the implied plan purpose is necessary for the argument to make sense. The point of the story is it’s not always clear what things are load bearing, nor what loads they bear.

If the chesteron origin is distracting to you, let’s discard it. I think we agree that changing a complex system without attempting to understand it first is foolish.

It’s not a bad argument to try to understand an existing system before changing it.

I’ve seen a lot of “why is this like this? I’m changing it” blow up in software. The clearest memory was not realizing that user names could be null, even though that looked impossible by tracing the registration route. Turns out there was another, stupider, way of registering.

It’s especially a good argument when the person evaluating the system has no domain knowledge or expertise.

I remain surprised no Italian plumbers have visited high ranking Republicans. They’re the worst people.

One should keep Chesterton’s Fence in mind.

Idiots like Musk will see a system they don’t understand and tear it down, and then people die.

I think one of the reasons some of the little kids in my life like me is I try to give them honest explanations. They don’t always fully understand, but I think they appreciate getting answers. And probably appreciate the occasional “I don’t know, actually. Let’s look it up”

What is an example of a safety rule who’s conditions no longer exist which would not have the conditions almost immediately return if the rule was removed?

My job is populated by dinosaurs that only recently adopted git for version control. They had some rules and procedures that made a kind of sense when deployment meant “I’ll scp the files to the prod server”, but don’t add value anymore.

Some people had a rule where after “deploy” they would SSH into prod and check the md5 hash of the files and compare them to their local copy. You don’t have to do that.

They also wanted to only allow one person to work on a file at the same time because “you can overwrite their changes”. Git handles that fine (unless you really fuck up the merge conflict, admittedly)

Sometimes the real reason is uncomfortable and they don’t want to say it out loud. Like, “the CEO is an idiot, and wants it this way for stupid reasons”

Though maybe “the CEO doesn’t understand how Google calendar works, so he thinks putting our time off in a shared spreadsheet is easier” would satisfy?

At my job a lot of stupid things come out of “someone high ranking doesn’t understand computers” or “they don’t benefit from fixing this, so it’s easier for them to leave it stupid”

I find teams won’t mark messages as read. Like I’ll be focused on the chat and it’ll stay unread. I have to click out and back into it.

When there’s one of those horrible “teams” things with threads, clicking on a new message on the sidebar shows me just that message. No context. I have to click on the channel and find it.

The core problem is they have “chats” and then some other horrible thing that looks like channels but sucks. Maybe they wanted that to be like a message board? I hate it.

Most of my work uses “chats” instead, but that’s horrible. No discoverability. A thousand permutations of people in chats. One for every meeting. (Was that important message in the standup chat? The planning chat? The side chat with the three competent guys?). And no threads.

Just give me channels with threads.

|| has a similar “oh that’s how it works in other places” behavior. I didn’t realize that for a while.

AI is giving stupid people a big force multiplier on their stupid.

If Sony was selling a backlog going back to 1980 at deep discount with no monthly fees and DRM-free at the seller’s discretion, they would get less flak.

I think they have incentives to tag broadly but not accurately so they pick up more visitors. Tag it as “anal” when there’s like a glimpse of butt, and you might get more views from people looking for that. There’s no mechanism to punish inaccurate titles and tagging that I know of.

I’m pretty sure they don’t invest in search because it’s a poor return on investment. Most people just hit the first page, crank one out, and leave. The next cohort is similarly easily satisfied with their crap search. The people looking for specifics like “big tit short red hair reverse cowgirl pov outdoors at dusk” aren’t profitable enough to spend engineering time on.

That’s my hypothesis, anyway.