undefined

points

[-]

Yeah, they could have done better, but to say they "had no concept of a duty of care to their users"... Isn't it a bit much?

by tolerance5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The entire story is a setup for a remark about a Neovim maintainer's refusal to remove a David Heinemeier Hansson quote from the Neovim homepage [0]. So with that in mind the rhetoric makes sense.

[0]: In spite of the author at Unsung saying that Neovim is "in news" for other reasons. Chisnall's account is being given in the immediate context of that news.

by gchamonlive4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

So you say the authors accusing neovim of being careless are themselves careless with the readers when they lure us into reading a piece that has second political intentions?

by tolerance3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Good question...

Maybe the author of the actual blog post had different intentions in sharing the Mastodon post than the author of the Mastodon post did. But the Mastodon post was made in response to the event that the blog post attempts to separate itself from. It's a reasonable thing to do if you're more interested in the technical issue and not the political one that the technical issue is being compared to.

But the context of the original post is meant to respond to a (techno-)political issue. This can explain why the post's rhetoric comes across as hyperbolic.

It doesn't help that UX seems to be talked about in ways that borrow the rhetoric of ethics from other disciplines like law and healthcare.