Hey, I know this is quite far downthread and didn’t get much attention - and there’s a 92% chance you won’t even see this comment due to HN’s bizarre lack of any adequate notification mechanism - but I just wanted to say I really appreciate your writing this. This crystallises a lot of thoughts I have about that kind of ‘selective pyrrhonism’, where positions one agrees with can be justified with only vague hunches (or defining your position as the null hypothesis: e.g. we default for no clear reason to assuming Amazon’s benevolence), but people who disagree are demanded to give preposterously specific evidence.
Re:I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
by yannoninator on Sunday September 26, 2021 @12:04PM
(#28662010)
> This really did not age well...
How so? Would you like to explain how you came to this conclusion?
"Sure this company has showed evil in the past, but what specific data do you have to show that they will be evil again?"
"Sure this structure allows the company to have a lot of power, but what specifically makes you think they will abuse it?"
This kind of specious reasoning is far too common in the corporate world to remove resistance to any unpopular sentiments. There comes a point where you really have to trust your gut on something and go with it even if you cannot logically justify it in the moment. That's what separates visionaries from tacticians.