> It shipped anyway.
reply“Real artists ship”
No product worth using is bug free.
No product is bug free. Are all products worth using?
reply"No product worth using is bug free" is not the same statement as "all bug free products are worth using". Come on man, this is basic logic.
replyYou’re right. But your statement was that no product worth using is bug free. I said that no software exists that is without bugs. Your statement uses the presence of bugs to indicate a product is worth using. But since all software has bugs, that applies to every product ever made. It doesn’t have any discriminating power. So it’s not fallacious on its face but it’s not useful either, and that’s what I was trying to point out.
reply> Your statement uses the presence of bugs to indicate a product is worth using.
replyThis is not correct; "If a product is worth using, then it has bugs." (P→Q) does not imply its converse "If a product has bugs, then it is worth using." (Q→P). Buginess is presented as a necessary condition of being worth using, not a sufficient one.
It does, however, imply "If a product has no bugs, then it is not worth using.".
To be clear, my statement is that "No product worth using is bug free" (which is what dpark said) does not mean the same as "all bug free products are worth using" (which is what your response to dpark implied).
reply> It doesn’t have any discriminating power.
replyThat was exactly my point. The presence of bugs in a product (in this case Apple Maps) does not mean it should not ship. “No open bugs” cannot be the criteria for whether a product is ready to ship.
> “No open bugs” cannot be the criteria for whether a product is ready to ship.
replyI think you mean, should not.
That “pointing out” is, itself, “not useful either.”
reply[dead]
replyI mean the problem was the Google contract, yeah?
reply