From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id mAIVBckTj2CTDQAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 02 May 2021 23:04:09 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id YNGWAMkTj2BpYAAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 02 May 2021 21:04:09 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5D52AEF1 for ; Sun, 2 May 2021 23:04:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:55528 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldJG3-0002W4-UR for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 02 May 2021 17:04:07 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48064) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldJFh-0002Vw-3B for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 May 2021 17:03:45 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:60912) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldJFe-0001e7-3M; Sun, 02 May 2021 17:03:44 -0400 Received: from mhw by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ldJFY-00016B-MA; Sun, 02 May 2021 17:03:36 -0400 From: Mark H Weaver To: Leo Prikler , =?utf-8?B?5a6L5paH5q2m?= Subject: Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes) In-Reply-To: References: <87tunz11mf.fsf@netris.org> <87y2daz13x.fsf@netris.org> <87r1j2z079.fsf@netris.org> <87a6pqypf9.fsf@netris.org> <87wnsp7yo9.fsf@gnu.org> <87v986pdej.fsf@netris.org> <874kfm75fl.fsf@biscuolo.net> <1bbb100c34c660eaa697ae7ea9ea7ea3638c4c50.camel@student.tugraz.at> <87wnsije63.fsf@netris.org> <8df20a7d869d5bdca47aaf044ac9b229b020aea2.camel@student.tugraz.at> <87k0ohorww.fsf@netris.org> Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 17:02:49 -0400 Message-ID: <87h7jkq25n.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.112.178.59; envelope-from=mhw@netris.org; helo=world.peace.net X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Guix Devel , GNU Guix maintainers Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1619989448; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=oqifv6hGvkPBkU4CZTujdJufZrITicgtDFidUjH9pug=; b=DnkjBG53Ms5PIg+3kcJVKmr3Vapyy8piaklHdDldBflYr5h/eqJ/NYg/W34kLDvK3DW8Eu C8w9xpp5726jGfcFBqjCBu330wSZ6/mJLu4aHnjL88ZKcof2KaoUKOHZpJyvYusojSpdpf KSD6T90Iayd4Pmd1m4s42AlNycxYhAt09wcct8ZNgbRzc6V+/0BWy1XEnPkdS3UCv8tRMz r8RLZP7J+LrIruOBaY7iSi4qYu32cU14PqFXUzCfOwTPXf4qr3s3fFDJig+AewXZueOxMK xnchJEIhBtp9j6tYNZI9mxdDciFwAIr6WPIDXY/bwwNP4X+FcKZTz6SoWT3Bqw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1619989448; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=fH8G+wE8Vk0NXu8cOKkH/owJfMqZkfp0snqMlcKAhJJxY7F1ooqYHCo2BbM5v7oarxlAA8 4ftvEWcG6bSj4SUrbl1OuXzY1WHD4mr/VhX1pelbsKp+r88hDn5vO+BzkwD3PGu9EoVSn4 /EfXZgswu36rIjjl+bXpx0+v6GnltkLLAzOgCl/m1pz/0wWP2BxVy7gpAeT2y5ZFeE2ei6 kAVUrjB70BIsa/fX6yVL6ElrbUyodjkapSTxCfnbDVO4/9wKrscu7Gz70nzfanwIN43qMX 60IEyTiEfPzoTod+Jqbgj0Fbcpe3ND/9iNxCo0+ysqa6u0njqYX4rRt7LB2bGA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.46 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: B5D52AEF1 X-Spam-Score: -2.46 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: gvK1YKoElQ0k Hi Leo, Leo Prikler writes: > Am Sonntag, den 02.05.2021, 15:29 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver: >>=20 >> Leo Prikler writes: >>=20 >> > Let us assume for the sake of argument I were to introduce a bug >> > into Guix. There are a number of ways this can happen, but let's >> > focus on the important distinction here, which is me purposefully >> > introducing that bug vs. it happening due to oversight. >> >=20 >> > Let us imagine the following four scenarios: >> > 1. You assume I'm acting in bad faith and I indeed am. >> > 2. You assume I'm acting in bad faith and I am not. >> > 3. You assume I'm acting in good faith and I am not. >> > 4. You assume I'm acting in good faith and I am. >>=20 >> This is a false dilemma , >> because you've missed a very important case, namely: >>=20 >> 5. You assume *nothing*. > I think you're nitpicking here. I don't think so. > clearly I either have evil intentions or I don't =E2=80=93 there's no mid= dle > ground. Yes, I agree with this. > Likewise, there's no middle ground on assuming evil > intentions, you either assume they exist or you don't. That's true also, but this is a different dichotomy than the one you presented above. In the sentence above, the dichotomy is between: (1) You assume bad faith (2) You do not assume bad faith In your list of scenarios above, there's a (false) dichotomy between: (1) You assume bad faith (2) You assume good faith It's a false dichotomy because neither of these is the logical negation of the other. They cannot both be true, but they _can_ both be false. In other words, I think that you have conflated "not assuming bad faith" with "assuming good faith". Do you see the difference? This is not mere nitpicking. It's a very important distinction. It's analogous to being forced to choose between "faith in god" and "atheism", without allowing for the possibility of "agnosticism". Does that make sense? >> This is, in fact, the current scenario. I'm not making any >> assumptions. >> That is truly the state of my mind on this question, and I think it's >> the only rational position to take. > Which one is the rational position now? Not assuming evil intentions > or assuming them? I think the only rational position to take here is to not make assumptions. Regards, Mark --=20 Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about .