The very first sentence of the article:

> Fire services attended the offices of Grand Theft Auto 6 developer Rockstar North this morning and secured "structural damage" following a reported boiler explosion.

It seems like it would be easier for some people to rig a boiler to explode than trying to get their hands on dynamite.

Why go through the hassle of trying to source a bomb when the victim provides you one on location already.

FYI, I'm not saying that's what happened, just that your dismissal shouldn't be immediate.

Also, the best way to sabotage something, is to make it look like an accident, that way they aren't looking for you.

Hanlon's razor

Well... then I guess the local boilermakers' union will have to come around with Scabby the Rat inflatables.

Are you familiar with the concept of a joke ? I can send you some peer reviewed papers to read about humour if you'd like.

Yes, I am familiar with jokes, but I don't see one here.

Jokes are not permitted on HN, please don't do it again.

HN is intented for mildly pleasant experiences only.

That's not actually true, though, is it? Or is there some other HN legal document besides https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ?

Joking about an office building exploding is contextually not a funny joke

Even worse, they didn't make a joke about the game "being on Steam".

It didn't land, but bad jokes aren't a crime

Don’t tell TSA that.

As long as no one died or got seriously injured, I see no problem in cracking jokes.

I never accepted it, I stopped buying from Amazon because of this specific issue long ago. Unfortunately I am not an Attorney General, so I can't bring criminal charges.

We shouldn’t need to have smart consumers, we should have laws that protect the dumb consumers like me.

You may not be Attorney General, but you do have a computer access and the Internet, where you could have shared this more publicly.

This information has been widely available for around a decade, if not longer, and is nothing new. It's been shared all over the internet by myself and countless people for years and years and years. I've even seen it show up on local news stations over the years.

Ok, so if he still makes a profit, so what? There are numerous other advantages to a happy and well-compensated workforce, even completely ignoring the societal benefits beyond just the company.

But this is not “absolutely everything”. No one is saying CEOs should be accountable for every action of an individual employee.

So if not the CEO, who is accountable when something like this breach happens? The CTO? The PM The DBA? Nobody? Maybe they’ll care developer who wrote the code or botched the configuration should be prosecuted?

CEOs can justify their pay be being accountable for what their company does. They’re the CEO, after all. Maybe they’ll care more when they have some actual skin in the game.

When a bridge fails, it is the professional engineer that signed off on that part. If you want someone to sign off on software or IT you will need to pay them quite a lot.

Yes, I would expect compensation to increase proportionally with accountability. What makes no sense is compensation that increases irrespective of accountability.

Being the CEO of a company that handles risky, sensitive things should be risky for the CEO, personally. And their compensation can reflect that.

In other words, they need to hire people whose job it is to “please”.

Provide Legal Exculpation and Sign Everything

https://how-i-met-your-mother.fandom.com/wiki/Provide_Legal_...

That could be outlawed as well as it probably wouldn’t be too difficult to show that person wasn’t actually making any of the decisions. Not that I expect any of this will ever happen.

In my experience civil engineers get paid less than software developers of equivalent experience or responsibility.

Yes, but they are good at what they do. Software is more conplex and has a culture of fix it in production that would make it far more risky to sign.

I wouldn't describe software as most people experience it as more complex.

And civil engineering projects are constantly fixing unforeseen design problems either during construction or afterwards.

I would distinguish the failure modes as different though eg analog vs digital. Real world engineering can absorb an awful lot of minor mistakes through safety factors etc. Failure can be gradual or just a matter of degree or even just interpretation of standards. Software failures are often more digital or only matter when "under attack"

Saying “up to” means that bound is the maximum value of the data set. It may be far from the median value, but it is included (or you’re lying). With any other interpretation the phrase has no meaning whatsoever.

I will concede, proactively, that "up to" could refer to some maximum possible bound, even if the current set doesn't include a value at that bound, though I would argue that's likely deceptive wording. For example, you could say that each carton of of eggs on a pallet contains up to 12 eggs, because that's the maximum capacity of the carton, even if none of the actual cartons on this pallet actually have 12 eggs in them.

Isn’t this more or less a case of “illegal numbers”?

Yes. This is no more pernicious than releasing a multiplication table.

Right has nothing to do with it. It’s about power and responsibility.

It would be irresponsible to release parrot into an environment that is not its natural habitat.

> I am not a parrot expert.

Then why are you giving advice on parrots?

They're parroting what they read on the internet.

> And other animals die too all of the time

That’s exactly their point, the parrots are no different. The majority will die, which is what they said.

To be fair, there is a logic behind “hone in on” that is at least plausible that relates to the intended meaning, and is perhaps somewhat responsible for it sticking around besides simply the similarity between “home” and “hone”.

As much as it angers me to say it, I do believe it is an eggcorn.

I agree, though remarkably it’s an eggcorn that is still sort of correct on its own.

This usage is a double misunderstanding, it gets both the phonetics of homing and the mechanics of sharpening a blade wrong.

It’s like calling someone a “stropping young lad”.

Honing a blade still "moves" the blade close to what you want: a blade that cuts well. It's not correct enough to have spawned the original phrase, but it's not completely absurd, like saying, "should of" instead of "should've" or saying "I could care less" instead of "I couldn't care less" - the first of which is nonsense and the second means the opposite of the intended meaning.

"Hone in on" is at least mildly in the correct direction.

I actually stumbled on this earlier today! I was reaching for home in on and settled on hone in on as it intuitively fit better to me! I remember thinking "Im trying to express reducing something critically which is like refining". Now I very clearly see the home etymology too though!