I think this is an overly tendentious reading. Nobody else seems to have gotten hung up on this, because they understand that it's a policy, not an immutable law of nature.

The argument advanced in the post is IMO clear: cooldowns are a sensible default to have, and empirically seem to be effective at mitigating the risk of compromised dependencies. I thought I took sufficient pains to be clear that they're not a panacea.

▲

jcalvinowens 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm simply saying I think the policy you're proposing is bad. It is completely bizarre to me you're trying to frame that as a semantic argument.

▲

woodruffw 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not saying it's a semantic argument. I'm saying that the policy isn't universal, whereas your argument appears to hinge on me thinking that it is. But this seems to have run its course.

	▲	jcalvinowens 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's a semantic argument. Me saying your proposed policy is bad is in no way predicated on any assumption you intended it to be "universal". Quite the opposite: the last thing anybody needs at work is yet another poorly justified bullshit policy they have to constantly request an "exception" to to do their job...