An inconsistently applied sanity check creates a false sense of security. Like how a safety barrier that isn't strong enough to take someone's weight might be worse than no barrier.
Unfortunately, as soon as you’re on another computer or at someone else’s shell, you’ll be more comfortable thinking less about rm-ing things and the sanity check won’t be there.
Right, I understand the concept. What I'm saying is that a safety barrier that sometimes doesn't work is better than rails that always guide you off a cliff; which is currently the YouTube model.
Many of the cases we hear about don't seem to be mistakes, including this one. Sometimes nobody can figure out any possible reason for a ban and sometimes it gets reinstated (that's the undo feature in action). But often there are obvious copyright issues or offensive material and the channel owner only goes clutching at fair use or freedom of speech after the ship has sailed.
That's the same mentality of people stating because one form of pollution reduction or green energy generation isn't solving the problem that it's not worth attempting to do what you can when you can where you can. Those small moves are what gets the thing moving.
