there’s actually aword for this type of mixed idiom: malaphor

Wait, how does that work? It seems like it should take the same energy to melt it either way.

presumably they mean using something besides your body heat to melt it

That’s more of an turn-of-phrase, no?

Is that a Mark Fischer quote?

“Take the Blue Pill and the gradual slide into fascism stops accelerating for four years while the current hellscape becomes the status quo, take the Red Pill and buckle the fuck up as we hyperspeed into fascism”

Are you trying to shut me up because you think I’m right and that hurts your feelings?

Or are you trying to shut me up because you think I’m wrong, but have no rebuttal because I’m actually right and that hurts your feelings?

And liberals will wring their hands and bemoan it, while saying “pity we can’t stop the zyklon chambers. After all: it’s the law, and if we go against it we’re literally no better than the fascists”

EBDB?

My mischievous side wants to do only one word answers, but my rational side knows they’d probably know how to twist it to fit their narrative

Q: What originally got you into DIY
A: Dave
Q: Dave?
A: Yes
Q: Who’s Dave?
A: Nobody
Q: Would you please elavorate?
A: No
…
Q: So have you stopped grooming kids?
A: No… Yes! FUCK!

Context:

TLDR: The devs don’t like bugs in released software being assigned CVEs, which requires a special security update instead of a standard bugfix included in the regular update cycle.

:The most recent “security advisory” was released despite the fact
: that the particular bug in the experimental HTTP/3 code is
: expected to be fixed as a normal bug as per the existing security
: policy, and all the developers, including me, agree on this.
:
: And, while the particular action isn’t exactly very bad, the
: approach in general is quite problematic.

There was no public discussion. The only discussion I’m aware of
happened on the security-alert@ list, and the consensus was that
the bug should be fixed as a normal bug. Still, I was reached
several days ago with the information that some unnamed management
requested an advisory and security release anyway, regardless of
the policy and developers position.

And nginx’s announcement about these CVEs

Historically, we did not issue CVEs for experimental features and instead would patch the relevant code and release it as part of a standard release. For commercial customers of NGINX Plus, the previous two versions would be patched and released to customers. We felt that not issuing a similar patch for NGINX Open Source would be a disservice to our community. Additionally, fixing the issue in the open source branch would have exposed users to the vulnerability without providing a binary.

Our decision to release a patch for both NGINX Open Source and NGINX Plus is rooted in doing what is right – to deliver highly secure software for our customers and community. Furthermore, we’re making a commitment to document and release a clear policy for how future security vulnerabilities will be addressed in a timely and transparent manner.