| ▲ | xvector 3 days ago |
| We really oughta institute the death penalty for execs involved in shit like this. |
|
| ▲ | Ekaros 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Too easy, I recommend life in prison working as slave labour to pay off all damages with interest set to reasonable rate, say prevailing rate +10%. And this should also apply to all stock holders. Clearly it is time to do away with limited liability. |
|
| ▲ | gruez 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Surely you'd also support the death penalty for developers that cause multi-million dollar bugs? |
| |
| ▲ | ProjectArcturis 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Bugs are unintentional. This was massive intentional theft. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 2 days ago | parent [-] | | There's no indication that's the case though? If the standard of evidence for executing CEOs is "maybe because there's embezzling going on because lack of records will help an embezzler", then it seems fair to execute programmers for introducing 0days because "maybe it's an intentional backdoor because a well placed memory corruption bug would help hackers". Even before the xz backdoor, accusations of vulnerabilities being intentional backdoors isn't uncommon. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | netsharc 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Heh, in real dystopia, terrorist groups pay the family of suicide bombers for their "sacrifice". In your dystopia, boards of failing/lying companies will employ suicide CEOs just before they get caught... |
| |
| ▲ | MathMonkeyMan 3 days ago | parent [-] | | "This was the story of Howard Beale: the first known instance of a man who was killed because he had lousy ratings." |
|
|
| ▲ | throwaway14356 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| don't word it like that! it should be a punishment that sufficiently discourages repetition |
|
| ▲ | treetalker 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Skin in the game prevents a lot of problems. |
| |
| ▲ | Nasrudith a day ago | parent [-] | | Nah, it just appeases bloodlust. The main reason why criminals commit crimes? Because they don't think they'll get caught.
Going arbitrarily draconian has limited returns at best, and escalates things at worst. (If the crime is punishable by death why on earth would they let witnesses live?) Compared to increasing the (perceived) odds of being caught. | | |
| ▲ | treetalker a day ago | parent [-] | | To be clear, the comment I was responding to mentioned severe punishment; at no time did I promote the death penalty or any corporal punishment. "Skin in the game" simply means incentives and disincentives: if people can act behind the guise of an entity and without repercussions (privatizing benefits and socializing losses/detriments) then society ends up worse off. |
|
|
