Mastodon Feed
Boosted by cwebber@social.coop ("Christine Lemmer-Webber"):
puppygirlhornypost2@transfem.social ("Amber :neodog_box:") wrote:
@mnl@hachyderm.io @cwebber@social.coop If I were to take the post literally, I would interpret it as a reminder that when creating and deploying software (and software protocols) that you should take into consideration the potential problems that you may be introducing. Taking a step back and looking at the problem over again to make sure that you've accounted for everything that you can reasonably (I realize that nonobvious side effects are nonobvious for a reason). Not deploying when you are uncertain is the safest bet, but there are less extreme interpretations.
If we look at the comparison to sex that Christine has cleverly done, it's more or less implied that there are better ways to go about it. For instance, you can wear condoms during intercourse. While it is not a 100% guarantee that you will be free of sexually transmitted diseases and/or infections (or, hell even the risk of pregnancy) it is still a far more reasonable approach if you must have sex than to not have it at all. Perhaps then, the post is an exercise to the reader, requiring us to find options that, while not perfect, allow the harm to be minimized while engaging in computational exercises.
While this one certainly reads as a shitpost or a "joke" I do not see it less important than the phrase "A networked computer is insecure by definition" which also encourages the reader to consider what level of security they find acceptable. Obviously, putting our computers in concrete bunkers underground where they cannot be physically accessed is not a reasonable plan for most people. Perhaps the people who are engaging in this post and sharing it around would like to remind others about this and the fact that we do not need to follow the big tech paradigm of "move fast and break things" to accomplish our goals.