|
|
|
|
|
|
by rndgermandude
1397 days ago
|
|
|
Yes, that guy pressed the button even though he should have known there are consequences to that. If you implement heuristics, it's your damn job to test your implementation and monitor it for adverse effects. In the context of this article, somebody made the decision to specifically change the thing (no matter if you want to call it a heuristic or an algorithm or whatever) to bury a certain story. This is not even an unintended outcome, it's an entirely intended outcome. |
|
|
You are only complaining that an heuristic outputted a result you don't like.
That's not a bug nor a problem. It's just that you feel you're entitled to an outcome that suits your fancy, regardless of the process involved.
Heuristics don't even ensure they'll output the same result twice, either because their input changes with time or because they already integrate a stochastic component.
Demanding that an operator polices the output of said heuristics especifically to suit your personal taste makes no sense at all, let alone demanding people be "held responsible" for disappointing you.