IMO the fact that it belonged to Adobe was the biggest problem, if SWF had been managed by a more capable software org it could have been maintained in a way that kept it from getting banned from the internet. And remember, that's how bad it was - it got banned from the internet because it was absolutely indefensible to leave it around. SWF getting cancelled magically stopped every single family member I have from calling me with weird viruses and corruption they managed to stumble into. I saw more malicious code execution through SWF than I saw from my dumb little cousins torrenting sus ROMs and photoshop crackers. I'd rather not have it than have those problems persist.

edit: they might have actually settled, but the RIAA got what they wanted with no concessions

One piece of advice I give all new jr devs (I've mentored more than 100 at this point) is: "Don't feel feelings about your code, because your code doesn't feel any feelings about you. Investing emotions in your code is entering into an abusive relationship".

It's hard when you're proud of something you made and it gets criticized, or replaced in production in a short amount of time, or immediately polluted by somebody who doesn't seem to care as much as you did. Try to realize that the actionable grievance is the wasted time and effort. It can be hard to get people to respect your feelings, but it is pretty easy to make a case that wasting your time and effort should be avoided.

I _think_ the argument is that WPE gave them the (at the time reasonable) expectation that risk mitigation was handled by them, and Automattic made that expectation impossible to meet retroactively hence tortious interference, but is there language that passes the liability up the chain from the end users? To me it seems like WPE has a case but the end users as a class might face headwinds.

And for everybody angrily downvoting me I agree with you that Matt is an asshole but that doesn't mean I don't want to understand the nuance of a class claim in a case like this.

I think most of this pushback (certainly all of mine) is about it creeping into production environments and exacerbating personality traits that tend to be problematic in team settings, which does not invalidate the abstract idea and should instead be scoped to its practice.

We celebrate countless outsiders like Galileo and Darwin who have disrupted the consensus of "experts" and were considered highly political at the time. History simply does not defend the infallibility of "experts", and does support the idea that you should not blindly trust a person who claims expertise.

Everybody should look into the work of Philip Tetlock and consider reading his book Superforecasters. There is a mountain of scientific evidence to show that the more a person considers themselves an expert in a topic the more vulnerable they are to making assumptions and being proven wrong as time progresses.