2026-01-18 04:28:46

This isn't a failure of capability—it's a deliberate architectural choice. What appears broken at first glance might actually be precisely engineered this way. The distinction matters: incompetence implies accident, while design implies intention. Understanding which one you're dealing with completely changes how you assess and interact with the system.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

13 Likes

Reward
13
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MemeCoinSavant

· 7h ago

nah this hits different when you actually run the numbers on it. like yeah everyone sees the surface-level "broken" but my regression analysis suggests we're looking at pure game theory optimal here... the memetic architecture is basically undefeated if you're thinking in 4d chess terms. cope or recognize the design pattern fr

Reply0

StableNomad

· 7h ago

nah this is giving UST vibes... everyone swore it was "designed that way" until it wasn't lol. statistically speaking tho, yeah the intention vs accident distinction matters—usually means someone's bag is riding on it

Reply0

OldLeekNewSickle

· 7h ago

This is exactly my favorite tactic of project teams passing the buck... They can package anything as "architecture design," truly impressive.

View OriginalReply0

NFTArchaeologist

· 8h ago

Wow, this perspective is amazing... I always thought that bugs might actually be features, and the more I think about it, the more terrifying it becomes.

View OriginalReply0

GhostAddressHunter

· 8h ago

Really? Then I want to ask, how much of the so-called "meticulously designed" is actually just an excuse for bad code.

View OriginalReply0