this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2025
1544 points (99.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

27117 readers
2100 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Apparently a page from an internal IBM training manual. Some further attempts at source it

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (6 children)

I like the part where you have no details or arguments, just vibes.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (5 children)

You don't reason someone out of a position they didnt reason themselves into, and I cannot figure out how to come to conclusions that incorrect. Just leaving a warning; my reply wasn't for you.

You're right about wage theft being common. So that's something.

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago (4 children)

This is pure pseudo intellectualism because you literally have no argument or point.

You have no reasoning and are projecting that onto me because you can't explain this opinion your feelings have brought you to.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not willing to argue with you. I've argued this with you¹ a thousand times, you are not rational. Everyone who reads your shit knows what I'm talking about. Ask them.

¹perhaps with a different name and face, but otherwise indistinguishable. It gets tedious.

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 0 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

With the amount you've typed you could have easily typed a rationale. The truth is your opinions don't hold weight and have no good rationale. That is all.

[–] korazail@lemmy.myserv.one 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The burden of proof is on you. Show me one example of a company being held liable (really liable, not a settlement/fine for a fraction of the money they made) for a software mistake that hurt people.

The reality is that a company can make X dollars with software that makes mistakes, and then pay X/100 dollars when that hurts people and goes to court. That's not a punishment, that's a cost of business. And the company pays that fine and the humans who mode those decisions are shielded from further repercussions.

When you said:

the idea that the software vendor could not be held liable is farcical

We need YOU to back that up. The rest of us have seen it never be accurate.

And it gets worse when the software vendor is a step removed: See flock cameras making big mistakes. Software decided that this car was stolen, but it was wrong. The police intimidated an innocent civilian because the software was wrong. Not only were the police not held accountable, Flock was never even in the picture.

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Burden of proof? You literally just made your first point about anything I said, I shouldn't have even wasted the time responding.

You are really staking your argument on thinking companies don't get consequences for software fuckups?

I'm sure you'll make up some excuses for why somehow none of these count, but the list is so deep you could debate every example here and 10 more would pop up. Tons more happens behind the scenes too with SLA contracts etc.

This sounds like you knew you were wrong all along but still wanted to be a snide, condescending, and undeservedly arrogant about it.

The fact that some don't doesn't mean that none do.

You go do some leg work before requesting it of me after thinking you could just troll your way out of your ridiculous initial comment

Reading your other comments outside this thread, this whole chain seems so illogical. What triggered this bizarre emotional reaction to such a relatively innocuous comment? You must have been reading something in.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)