Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Post History
I kind of like the idea, especially for outdated/obsolete technology. But I'm concerned over how subjective a "dangerous" mark might end up. For example when it comes to programming, I work with sa...
Answer
#1: Initial revision
I kind of like the idea, especially for outdated/obsolete technology. But I'm concerned over how subjective a "dangerous" mark might end up. For example when it comes to programming, I work with safety-critical embedded systems. The concerns I might have for what makes a program dangerous are not at all the same as someone working with network security programming. Not to mention the broad masses that program non-critical software. So if I were to apply my quality standards on the average desktop program, I will come across as very pedantic. If a truck control system firmware divides by zero, it might cause physical harm to people, damage buildings or machinery etc. If a desktop program does the same, you get a little evil message box saying "bug", annoying but not dangerous. Meaning that in order to label something dangerous, I would need to understand the end product, something that is very often not clear by the question. As for electronics, there's a strong trend that quacks or fresh graduates use hobbyist board computers like Arduino for commercial products. This is dangerous because that was never the intention of those boards - there are serious safety concerns both in terms of software and EMC. Are we to label everything tagged Arduino as dangerous then? Professional engineers will agree - hobbyists and students will get furious if we do. One would need to give this some serious thought before implementing it.