A good one would also be the whole debate about warning measures in apt so it doesn’t just happily remove essential system components like xorg. That debate came up after LinusTechTips’ video where Pop!_OS became unusable as he tried to install Steam.
Linus had to override a warning message so serious that he had to literally type in “Yes, do as I say!” – including the exclamation point! – in order to force it. Quit your bullshit.
Yes, there was that single safety measure.
Will this single thing with the white text next to hundreds of other rows of white text create sufficient awareness to discourage someone who was 1. told by the internet that “this is the solution!” and 2. has no notion about the severity of this action given they’ve nothing to compare it to except systems (and the web) that constantly cry for attention? Lol no, absolutely not.
There’s a good reason fatal warnings are almost always red or yellow and there are literally pictograms of human skulls in warning signs. People will not understand some white text next to a ton of other white text (that’s utterly incomprehensible to most of them, raising the tendency of people to disregard all of it) paired with something akin to a captcha as the fatal warning it was meant to be. That is not how (a majority of) humans work.
The warning as it was back then provided no sufficient safeguards for newcomers, yet gave people sufficient reason to blame them. Although, and that’s the worst part, they have to be applauded for even featuring a warning at all.
The argument that came up afterwards was about exactly this, making the warning adequate and sufficient so even if the information on the internet said they should execute this, people are still being made sufficiently aware so they’re more likely to stop despite feeling that whatever they want might be just around the corner. But of course there’ll always be some people who prefer to call others stupid for their lack of experience or mistakes, especially if they want to protect something from criticism they identify with.
My previous statement was bad, but I stand with the opinion about the whole debate from back then being a good example.
Linus had to override a warning message so serious that he had to literally type in “Yes, do as I say!” – including the exclamation point! – in order to force it. Quit your bullshit.
Should’ve been more verbose with that argument.
Yes, there was that single safety measure. Will this single thing with the white text next to hundreds of other rows of white text create sufficient awareness to discourage someone who was 1. told by the internet that “this is the solution!” and 2. has no notion about the severity of this action given they’ve nothing to compare it to except systems (and the web) that constantly cry for attention? Lol no, absolutely not.
There’s a good reason fatal warnings are almost always red or yellow and there are literally pictograms of human skulls in warning signs. People will not understand some white text next to a ton of other white text (that’s utterly incomprehensible to most of them, raising the tendency of people to disregard all of it) paired with something akin to a captcha as the fatal warning it was meant to be. That is not how (a majority of) humans work. The warning as it was back then provided no sufficient safeguards for newcomers, yet gave people sufficient reason to blame them. Although, and that’s the worst part, they have to be applauded for even featuring a warning at all.
The argument that came up afterwards was about exactly this, making the warning adequate and sufficient so even if the information on the internet said they should execute this, people are still being made sufficiently aware so they’re more likely to stop despite feeling that whatever they want might be just around the corner. But of course there’ll always be some people who prefer to call others stupid for their lack of experience or mistakes, especially if they want to protect something from criticism they identify with.
My previous statement was bad, but I stand with the opinion about the whole debate from back then being a good example.