I kind of assume the opposite problem. If you start with code and then add testing and documentation you may never committed to leave broken things to maintain otherwise inconsistent alternative sources of truth. If you try to maintain these things from the start you probably have a lot of errors that no one is authorized/competent to fix without leaving behind references to incorrect truths, even if it is only in a less frequent contributor's mind.
If the point is continued legal meaning then it would be better to digitally publish in any way that allows distributed verification of the record as what was published and not challenged.
Probably thousands of people have some means to tamper with that archive, but courts don't really care to revisit hundred year old wills in the ways soap operas imply.
In a consumer context it seems pretty harmless compared to the manipulation by design of the profit driven side in B2C or even B2B transactions. I thought the article was going to go toward the political tactic, which is highly unethical and requires a response of not tolerating any stupidity to penalize the fakers.
I'd don't really see a difference between sending an email to a list or to a maintainer. Maybe that's an argument for not adding and adapting to unnecessary concepts like a web based pull request.
> How do you build any sort of community without a place for discussion?
There exist many ways for this. Why does this have to be the same provider (if you don't want to self-host this functionality) as the one that hosts the server for the VCS?
I don't think the world would be a very ecologically diverse place if all continents were as domesticated as Europe. When we argue that Africa, Asia and South America should protect large predators, I think it rings hollow if we have no remorse and no restoration projects.
Whatever equilibrium we've reached in Europe might need to change with more wild predators eating birds and cats.
The regulators seem a bit condescending about other countries. Given everything I've heard about US import and food controls the manufacturer may have intentionally chosen the US since they could not anticipate losing the lottery and being properly tested.
> manufacturer may have intentionally chosen the US since they could not anticipate losing the lottery and being properly tested
In an EU vs US showdown, a manufacturer will sell the "inferior" product to US, but US and EU product safety regulations are miles beyond other large markets (China, India, Brazil, Russia, ASEAN, etc).
Manufacturers will absolutely create different SKUs of the exact same brand for different export markets. Try out P&G products in Thailand versus the US for example. Or the Indian Cough Syrup scandal where Indian companies exported cough syrups that wouldn't pass Indian regulatory muster to Africa, Central Asia, and poorer parts of India
Any level of random sampling is a serious concern for a conglomerate like P&G with both many products and high volume. Negasmart may be able to sell for years at a substantial volume for them, at a considerably higher price compared to BRICS, before their first finding. I would like to see evidence from the FDA that they aren't just lucky on this one detection, (if it even was detected by them before doctors/parents reports.)
Not all of these are refused for being dangerous, of course. Some just have inaccurate labels or suchlike. But still hundreds of times each and every month.
Might backfire by forcing Russia to simplify their tax system which aside from economic gains could also free up thousands of accountants for the front line.
