You should consider adding IPD specifically to the HN guidelines. It's not mentioned.
It seems you've sometimes considered it a kind of personal attack, but I certainly didn't intend it to be one here - I mentioned it out of genuine concern for the poster's well-being.
I believe you! The problem is that intent is invisible and what really matters in the threads is not intent, but effects. The IPD thing just has reliably bad effects, so it's best to avoid.
We can't add things like that to the guidelines because there are too many of them. I posted a bit about this yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38620847 - if it helps at all.
>Think of it this way: two sources of persistent data (your memories, and the source control system) are in conflict. You'd want to audit both, wouldn't you?
Going to see a psychiatrist for $300+/hr seems a bit extreme. A better first step would be to document the phenomena, so if it occurs again you can convince others that you're not at fault. For instance, having a screen recorder on 24/7 so you can rewind back and see what actions you took. Or if you're paranoid that your machine is backdoored, printing of screenshots of the diffs in the CL, reviewing the hardcopy to verify they're good, and then putting it in a safe place.
that's less extreme than seeing a psychiatrist? interesting.
the paranoia was part of why I suggested the psych, though. tampering with a submitted CL would require access to the SCM's database, then to rewrite history, as well as changing the code. that requires a conspiracy. and for what? to undermine someone's career? I could see a major intelligence agency pulling it off to sneak in a backdoor or something, not some coworker trying to get ahead.
