Thanks for the explanation! Makes sense to me - although I do understand their marketing and pronociation concerns.

I’m not sure where I stand myself so your point of view is very appreciated :)

Have you read the article? If yes which aspects so you disagree with?

Edit: I don’t want to change the original, but I didn’t mean “did you read the article” as smart assert but as “is that a taste statement or something in relation to what they wrote?”

I would love to find anything that had a more positive outlook … but alas perhaps I should ask OpenGrok because my creativity is not enough.

Fuck em.

Just playing uhm angels advocate? Not sure how to call it, the naive optimist perhaps!

Not necessarily: the statement (in isolation) is a call to learn and become capable to explain limitations. The criticized effect is basically “people not being able to explain the limits”.

I suspect that “finding limits” wasn’t incentived though (and I mean things like positive feedback, not money). And then you get shit-in-shit-out factories.

Or to rephrase your statement: If you want to play a game then stick to the rules you’ve set up - otherwise everyone’s allowed to cheat.