Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I’m sincerely struggling to understand - what is changed by referring to Github as the subject of the second sentence, as opposed to leaving out Github in the version you proposed?



It’s active voice vs passive voice.

People frequently use the passive voice when referring to how software works. Like, “I entered my PIN and the phone unlocked”. “I entered my PIN and the phone unlocked itself” is maybe common too, but less common is “I entered my PIN and iOS unlocked my phone” or “I enter my pin and Apple unlocked my phone”[0].

Using the active voice shifts responsibility and autonomy for the action away from the author and onto GitHub. (Which, I mean, is exactly what the author was trying to do I think. But we were talking about ways the post could be changed to do that less.)

[0]: This is confounded a bit by GitHub being both the name of the software and the company. In context though I believe they meant the company?


Thank you for a patient explanation. I see that using passive voice leaves out all other decisions, choices, influences, etc. And I agree that active voice is a shift to bring those into the mix.

I think the point I’m hung up on is I just don’t see blame in my version. I sincerely read it as a factual retelling, including GitHub (the software) as an agent that responds to commands and performs them. It makes me wonder where the borderline (if there is one?) would be between statements that convey neutrality versus seeming to be accusations (perhaps unintentionally and undetectably).

I am curious what you do see as GitHub the company’s contributing actions to the overall situation. And where the accusation line might be.

Clearly someone or some group of someones at Github built the functionality. And, in so doing, made it possible for an accidental deletion situation to exist, even if at the time they did it completely in good intention and with included warnings.

At some point though, Github themselves deleted data on their own repo by taking it private. They followed up by restoring their data, and not changing the dialog to be more clear.

Are any of these statements blaming, to your eyes/ears?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: