11–20 of 384 posts
I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is written like an apology they know they must write . It does not come across as apologetic. It comes across as rationalization veiled as an apology, and it doesn't sit well with me. I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.
I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is written like an apology they know they must write . It does not come across as apologetic. It comes across as rationalization veiled as an apology, and it doesn't sit well with me. I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.
The first two sentences seem sincere. This reads as a real apology.
I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is written like an apology they know they must write . It does not come across as apologetic. It comes across as rationalization veiled as an apology, and it doesn't sit well with me. I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.
I agree, but let's give them a little extra benefit of the doubt. I thought as I was reading it that it seemed stilted and forced, then I wondered if the author(s) don't speak / write English as a primary language. I'll be interested to see how they react to feedback / responses.
Either this is a bald-faced lie or they didn't think through the implications of their research, neither of which bode well for their trustworthiness in future. However, if it's the latter, then they possibly deserve additional leeway.
On the other hand, I wonder whether this letter would have eventuated without the ban - if not, then they've likely been forced to write it, in which case any remorse is either selfish (i.e. they've been professionally reprimanded and feel bad about getting caught, or making such an egregious error in judgement), or hollow.
> I agree, but let's give them a little extra benefit of the doubt. I thought as I was reading it that it seemed stilted and forced, then I wondered if the author(s) don't speak / write English as a primary language.
https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/
It looks like you might be right about this, but I think that reading it as stilted and forced is still accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. This letter is an attempt to justify and rationalise their actions. Essentially, it amounts to saying "we're sorry you were offended and felt hurt by our legitimate work but we had no choice but to lie to you and unethically experiment on you without your consent or we wouldn't have been able to do it". Their statement is not an actual apology, even if it is phrased in the language of apology, and it is an ex…
Just curious, and I'm genuinely asking as someone who thought the letter seemed well-intentioned: what should they have put in the apology letter?
This bit just reads like "sorry you're upset".
I would have expected something along the lines of "sorry, we should have asked the maintainers and we understand why it was wrong not to", instead of "sorry, we didn't ask the maintainers, but this is why we didn't".
I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is written like an apology they know they must write . It does not come across as apologetic. It comes across as rationalization veiled as an apology, and it doesn't sit well with me. I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.
Indeed. This letter is an attempt to justify and rationalise their actions. Essentially, it amounts to saying "we're sorry you were offended and felt hurt by our legitimate work but we had no choice but to lie to you and unethically experiment on you without your consent or we wouldn't have been able to do it". Their statement is not an actual apology, even if it is phrased in the language of apology, and it is an ex…
I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is written like an apology they know they must write . It does not come across as apologetic. It comes across as rationalization veiled as an apology, and it doesn't sit well with me. I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.
I was just about to post: "This is a great apology." Context is everything, of course. I think you're right that it's tainted by the fact that they absolutely did not have a choice, and coming from people who've deceived the same tribes they're now trying to apologize to.
- "We are sorry for the harm we caused" instead of "We're sorry for any harm we caused"
- Not trying to explain their actions in the first paragraph of the apology! I think most folks are aware of their intent by now, and leading with yet another explanation just makes the whole thing feel disingenuous
- Avoid saying things like "this has been painful for us as well"
Unfortunately, it has so many hallmarks of a non-apology, and it's hard to look past those given the context.
As others have mentioned, they can clear this up with their actions going forward, but it will take time to rebuild trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just about to post: "This is a great apology." Context is everything, of course. I think you're right that it's tainted by the fact that they absolutely did not have a choice, and coming from people who've deceived the same tribes they're now trying to apologize to.
And what of the merits? If the previous 190 patches were indeed legitimate it strikes me as overly vengeful to pull them in a "punish the son for the sins of the father and the father for the sins of the son" kind of way.
They university, and indeed, the researchers, only acted once the ban was imposed - i.e. they were getting away with it without reputational damage, and only once it was stained did they actually do anything.
I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is written like an apology they know they must write . It does not come across as apologetic. It comes across as rationalization veiled as an apology, and it doesn't sit well with me. I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.
As far as giving benefit of the doubt, it's likely not done out of malice in the first place. Just a combination of poor reasoning and doesn't exactly clear up if they even considered alternatives to control their variables. Unfortunately, it seems like they were already given the benefit of the doubt from their first offense, but did not take any lessons away from that, so it would be understandable if the maintainers kept their ban.
-they apologize for the three patches in 2020
-they claim asking permission would have defeated their research
-they claim the other 200 were legitimate patch attempts (a sample of which were, from my personal reading, from 'innocuous but useless' to 'slightly harmful').
Hard to believe, but plausible.