incautious

IPv6 would only promote incautious distribution which would again result in address space exhaustion, more abuse and increased cybercrime.

So the prediction that incautious and unverified unsafe {} blocks would cause CVEs seems entirely accurate.

It also signals professionalism in their field - who would want to rely on someone so incautious as to write plainly?

If the scientists are incautious, the computer code's genome (instead of the intented original DNA) might be written to the biological cell.

But their marketing is incautious and might need to be tuned up.

If you're incautious and don't pay attention to your object creation/destruction cycle in a tight loop, you're in for a world of hurt (no surprise there).

And incautious use could still leave DNA or fingerprints.

> So the prediction that incautious and unverified unsafe {} blocks would cause CVEs seems entirely accurate.

It was incautious of me to state otherwise.

It just sounds extremely incautious to me.

You might enjoy the Incautious Optimism Substack.

> But their marketing is incautious and might need to be tuned up.

What kind of case can you make that "incautious and unverified unsafe {} blocks" is worse than that?

One of those "incautious scientists" thinks they are synthesizing something benign, not taking precautions, and a highly infectious disease pops out.

I was asking if there is not an inverse function, which would be a higher karma unflag operation, on the assumption people who flag up are being somewhat incautious and a smaller set of people could say "no, this is worth seeing" I have no problem with flagging per se, or with my own ability to see flagged content.