I’m speaking metaphorically. I know what footguns are, though I am using my words in a literary sense, and I think you’re being more literal maybe?

Implicit in the usage of the term footgun in a non-hypothetical context is that said footguns refer to actually existing issues or events. My point in mentioning Checkhov's rifle was to acknowledge this property of footguns: it’s not a matter of if but when they go off.

But seeing as how they will unless your process can eliminate them, it behooves us to apply some game theory to explain why collaborative development when footguns are involved is something between a Mexican standoff and Russian roulette: a circular firing squad.

We can’t blame the footguns at that point. That’s just the game. The only winning move is not to play.

▲ godelski 4 days ago | parent [-]

  > I know what footguns are, though I am using my words in a literary sense, and I think you’re being more literal maybe?

This makes no sense to me. They are just different things... and do you think I'm talking about a literal gun? What about a footgun is literal lol

I really don't know what you're going on about

▲ aspenmayer 4 days ago | parent [-]

I don’t mean literal guns, I mean literary[0] guns.

I feel that we agree, as I originally stated in my first reply, so I apologize if you feel that I’ve wasted your time.

My goal was to explain why I think that people leave jobs for higher pay instead of fixing things and getting promoted internally, which I believe was what you mentioned, which is party due to dysfunctional workplaces with footguns without proper safeguards, and in the context of this thread above you, people who have the context may have left the company, temporarily or otherwise, and those who remain to do the work may use LLMs to compensate.

[0]> (of language) associated with literary works or other formal writing; having a marked style intended to create a particular emotional effect: the script was too literary.

- Oxford English Dictionary

▲ godelski 4 days ago | parent [-]

I know the difference. You write literal.

  >>> I think you’re being more literal maybe?

I'm saying a footgun is de facto metaphorical so it is a weird thing to accuse me of being literal. I understand Chekhov's rifle is a different thing, and a literally. I literally demonstrated knowledge of this. I literally stated as such

  >> Checkhov's rifle is a foreshadowing device

	▲	aspenmayer 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don’t know what to say. I explained my position and you find it lacking. I make no accusations of lack of understanding, I merely lay out my reason for all to critique and correct, and so you may understand my thought process. Do you think that metaphors can be used too literally? All models are wrong, and some are useful. Let’s not let the perfect allusion, that I didn’t make, be the enemy of the good comparison, that I didn’t (in your view), make. I’m fine discussing my views, but I can’t change what I said originally. No one is finding fault with you in this thread, least of all me. If you persist in finding fault where I readily admit fault through deliberation, I might be led to believe perhaps you protest too much? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much...