abugher

> Where is the war?

Central America, where the US has a history of funding politically aligned factions in conflict, contributing to today's instabilities which drive people to our border.

> Where is the excess death?

Mostly Central America, but keeping people in crowded stressful conditions during a pandemic can probably account for a few more.

> To put it succinctly, migrants who enter the country without filling out paperwork, and get caught, end up in one of these places for months-to-years while USG figures out what to do with them.

The US first funds wars in these people's home countries, then refuses to let them in when they want to live in a safer country, then rounds them up and puts them in camps because they came in anyway. That sounds like a concentration camp to me, even if the death rate is lower than other instances of the same thing.

Pedantic attacks on word usage is fun, though. Let me try it:

> ICE, of course, runs an actual concentration camp which has a slightly more troublesome history than the word master.

The history of the word "master" includes the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the institution of slavery in the US, a well known and extremely long running atrocity. That doesn't seem less troublesome than current ICE activity.

But if you consider what is being said, instead of seizing on exact wording, you can see the points that the action of running these camps is more important than the choice of word used to describe a code repo, and that as a form of concentration camp, the camps are bad - not that slavery wasn't a big deal (my facetious straw man), and not that the US are the British and the detainees are the Boers.

A few responses seem to focus on two of the words chosen in that post, and ignore this point about misplaced focus on choice of words.

What you're saying is very hard to accept, which is not to say it's wrong. We have access to an absurd amount of power, and it's safe if we do it right, but we're not currently mature enough to reliably do it right, so we should refrain.

Or more specifically, and even harder to accept: We know perfectly well how to do it right, but the danger of someone selling out public safety is high enough that we should refrain from advocating for an entire field of progress, at least presently.

You have a choice. You can engage in conversation with peers as if you might want to understand the reasons for their actions. Or you can preach at them and blame them as individuals for system problems.

Tangent:

I think you should really have someone who hasn't seen the app test with the blindfold.

Is that double blind, or just single blind plus literally blind?

Probably because you used the metaphor of a military invasion and used the phrase "death trap". That kind of talk will get a defensive reaction. That's nothing to do with whether you have a point. It's just cause and effect.

Good point. Does that mean there should be zero coordination? What about coordinating with the security teams for a few big Linux distributions? That would be a much smaller list of people, and might make it easier/quicker for some commercial vendors to get fixed once the public announcement is made.