Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethanbond | Hacker News Reader

Or (1) is: it’s impossible to create codified rules that have no false negatives and no false positives and we’re smart enough not to act like it’s possible.

You know, this is how almost every rule system on the planet operates. Ultimately there’s an arbiter whose job is to look at the totality of the case.

View on HN

This has a nice demonstration at the following link (which was on hn recently):

https://novehiclesinthepark.com/

A better response would be: "Thank you for making us aware, we will revisit their evaluation or update the guidelines" (and then they would actually do so)

This isn't what's happening though. If you're a big app you get to do whatever you want, and if you're small then you have to do as you're told.

That would not be a better solution because it would entail either “solid” rules that are actually always fluctuating and/or people having prior assessments overturned after the fact.

As opposed to… humans working through a specific situation for a specific solution?

It would at least strive for equality, instead of letting the big boys do whatever the hell they want while punishing everyone else (and making it impossible to compete).

There's also the ethical concern about how apple (or their reviewer) can bully you specifically which means there is no other way to delivery our software to your users, other than complying with a bully.

The point isn’t to strive for equality, it’s to curate a healthy ecosystem.

Sure, the world is rife with ethical concerns.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com