do you have some specific examples? (not a rails user, so if there are obvious things, i'm unware)
a bit ot, but i've noticed an uptick in what seems like a reductive/straw-man characterization of disagreeing with particular ideas as summarily dismissing "different ideas" in general.
Rails is an opinionated framework in that it has strong opinions for what the default configuration should be. They realise it can't be general purpose and stay as effective. But if you're doing CRUD apps, on the web, those defaults save you a bunch of time.
That's not hostile to differing ideas, it's just saying that some ideas don't belong in rails or rails itself becomes less good.
I also thought he was funny:
> He sarcastically stated in November 2016 that "Python 3 is not Turing complete" due to claims from Python project developers that Python 2 code cannot be made to run in the Python 3 VM.
Oh come on, that is hilarious.
DHH is full of himself, but who wouldn't be, if they singlehandedly developed a world-changing webserver API?
It's not a trivial thing, for 8bn people to learn to speak to each other directly. If Matz is having trouble... it's a sign this isn't about bad people. We've got a system that's prone to it.
But that's not really new either. Consider the historic concept of the poison pen letter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_pen_letter
I'd certainly be interested in your proposed systemic fixes. But I don't think the problem is our communications system. I think it's much broader.
And yes, this problem was actually much worse a decade or two ago. You should see archives some of the old private open source forums! Holy moley were people horrible to each other.
At least now we have some awareness of the problem and better understanding of its mechanisms.
I don't think anonymity is a problem per se. Real people engage in all kinds of shitty trolling using their real names. And their real friends egg them on.
The difference is perhaps that their local real life community don't know about it, outside of their friends.
Real names may stop some people from trolling but there seem to be an abundance of people willing to put their name to it.
A lot of people just need to vent to someone in that moment and any obstacle would make them give up. Or maybe this is a horrible idea...
It seems the only way is to put a price onto it.
Incredibly entitled AND toxic? Yeesh. What a combination.
Personally, while on the one side it's toxic, rude, not very welcoming etc etc etc, I do believe it's an effective form of leadership - a dictatorship where he can keep the kernel from becoming everyone's party, and where he can avoid years of discussion with a curt "You are wrong, I am right, shut the fuck up" - and from what I've read, often with a list of arguments, so he's not just yelling at people to shut up but yelling at people to be better.
Mind you that's all my superficial interpretation, I don't know the guy, am not involved at all, etc.
The fundamental issue here is the asymmetrical one-to-many connection, where "many" is basically "gigantic anonymous blob". This creates an enormous power imbalance - not to mention makes it almost impossible for the lone individual on one side to manage the blob on the other, since it only takes a few rotten apples to completely ruin your day.
Becoming more blunt, rude or even toxic in response is basically a form of self-defense. It is a way of setting boundaries, of pushing back. In some sense it might work because it can even out the power imbalance in that one-to-many connection, at a cost of course (and it probably doesn't matter much whether or not the person already had that attitude to begin with - the result is the same).
My kitchen sink psychology take on this would be that sometimes doing something unnice can emotionally compensate for being on the receiving end of un-niceness. You see this a lot in online games where nice players will grief from time to time after they have been griefed. Linus gets a lot of public and presumably also private criticism for basically everything he does, and writing a rude mail every couple weeks may compensate.
That being said I personally have written some (in my perception) rude mails and almost always regretted it, apologizing in some cases even.
With that in mind I don't envy anyone whose name is prominently associated with a popular open source project. I wouldn't want to be in their skin.
Very interesting to see that in the light of recent CoC adoption and Linus hiatus and so on.
Being firm, stating the goals, requirements, laying out a roadmap and so are very important and can be done without being abusive/abrasive. And similarly, asking for a plan and other project/engineering management basics should be the method of steering developers instead of shouting at them when they don't go on the correct way.
With random anonymous users, it's obviously hard to tell. And somebody using a dozen different accounts to evade blocks is at minimum using Twitter as a force multiplier for their terribleness. But as far as actually bringing out the worst in us? The people I've known in person who say awful stuff on Twitter are awful in meatspace too. The minor celebrities who spew hate and harass strangers on Twitter are generally also known for mistreated employees, failed partnerships, and speedy breakups.
This is something that's on my mind a lot as we talk about tech ethics. Whether it's Twitter driving harassment or Facebook driving depression, or even Cambridge Analytica manipulating specific voter segments, I think we underestimate the likelihood of "this always happened, but now it's online". Before Twitter, people were harassed in person or by phone. Before Facebook, depressed people still picked low-intensity pasttimes and felt bad about comparisons to their friends. And before Cambridge Analytica, Viguerie was using near-identical tactics by mail.
While we can suppose and discuss personal ethics, and while we can agree that certain behaviors are hurtful or abusive, we cannot expect that a single policy of that style will actually defend against abuse. At least not at scale.
This is the difference between public health and medical practice. They make different decisions because while a good doctor can behave with great skill and ethical power they cannot stop you from getting sneezed on.
Twitter (just as an example) as a platform is clearly a failure in some use cases. This shouldn’t be surprising—it’d be straight unsettling for one tool to be right for everyone in all situations and at all scales. As it is, people are today choosing to deal with the stress because it’s “where the people are”, but the economics of that won’t always play in Twitter’s favor.
I think there is legitimate opportunity here, but the answer won’t look much like a Twitter (e.g., or, more generally, the platforms of today) at all.
Would an optimally designed platform handle abuse better than Twitter (or Reddit, or the like)? Absolutely. I also don't think that that absolves anyone of the responsibility to engage in civil discourse rather than uncivil.
You do when you can remain anonymous while doing so, but fortunately or unfortunately, I wouldn't have it any other way.
This reminds me a bit on the discussion of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3633985 where some folks were trying to justify that it was ok to throw their used paper towel on the floor instead of the trash. A person is responsible for the pain they intentionally bring others.
And I'm not naive or anything, I know people can be real POS on Twitter, GitHub issues, etc. But is it really difficult to just say (or at least, think) "fuck off" and ignore them? I'm not trying to troll or anything, I'm genuinely curious and would love for somebody who's experienced this to share a little bit how you can get so dragged into it that you literally lose sleep over something like that.
What's the thought process that makes you eventually believe that you owe these people anything?
Edit: Damn, wasn't expecting such a harsh downvote for trying to understand what goes through a high profile maintainer's head. I guess everybody is expected to just naturally know and understand what it feels like :) Next time, I'll keep my curiosity to myself.
It's not an issue when it just happens occasionally. But it is an issue when it keeps happening again and again.
The worst people are the really argumentative people, those who don't stop trying to convince you. You tell them no, and they come up with yet another argument. And they try to make you feel bad for ignoring your audience or something.
Most decisions are somewhat subjective, so no matter what you decide someone is going to complain.
And you don't want to ignore those people, since they use your product after all. But it's just so tiring...
At scale, yes.
All the time.
Anytime you're around other people, at least two of them will be loudmouth assholes to you. Relentlessly so.
You really can't see how that would get to you eventually?
If you get a crowd that over the years is harshly negative towards you as an individual, situations where there are many forks which attacks your ability to help the community by fracturing it, or other toxic behavior, then it saps the fun out of things. If there are enough people that drain the fun from your profession or hobby then that can indeed "ruin your life" if it's core enough to you as a person.
As a maintainer of a moderately successful project, I will say that a small number of toxic community members can have a noteworthy negative impact on your general happyness when heavily involved in a project.
Been an idiot myself, I know how many damage I can cause & caused. Lucky, through out many years, I've learnt to investigate the problem first, before deciding whether or not to send hate mail/comments.
Sometime, during the investigation, I'll found out the fact that I was the one who actually caused the problem, because I'm such an idiot. When that happens, I will just sit on my chair for few seconds to appreciate the time that I've saved for not to write the hate message with my broken English.
Sadly, investigating is a skill not everybody have.
The medium of the internet brings out the worst in all of us -- even the most empathetic among us are worse people on the net than IRL, because we are all missing that feedback.
Don't appreciate the time saved; appreciate having avoided the embarrassment of falsely accusing someone for your own actions. I mean, it's interesting that you don't think of the other party that avoided receiving a misdirected hateful message, and just think of your own time saved.
Also, what good do hate messages do for anybody? Why even consider writing one? If you need to vent, can't you do so privately, or share constructive, open-minded criticism free of hate?
Friends of mine swore by your software, never at it.
It seems that https is not supported
I wrote about it, more here if you're curious:
This thread resonates with that to me. He's just a guy, like any of us, trying to make something beautiful and good for the world. There may be issues, bugs, or even serious design issues, but we're all in this together.
While we may criticise and want Ruby Improve, ( Guild, GC, JIT, etc ). Lets not forget to show him some love, after Guido quit Python Core, I believe the worst for Ruby would be Matz also quit being Core Dev.
And a Reminder the Unofficial Slogan of Ruby, "Matz is nice, so we are nice."
Because toxic people enjoy a disproportionate advantage on the internet.
Then I got a taste of the hate mail :)
It’s incredible how people will spend $5 every day on a coffee, but spend that same amount once on an app, and (some) people feel entitled to say the darndest things over email. Doubly impressive when they receive years of free updates. Add to it the real financial pain an angry one star review...
I can’t imagine the scale of emotion Matz has had to wade through, all for providing an awesome, amazing, free tool to anyone who wants it.
He’s probably not reading this, but just in case: Thank you, Matz.
I have noticed this problem in other places where people have to deal with the public at large without a filter. For instance, a retail or waiter might encounter all kinds of rude people on a regular basis.
I wish there was an AI quality filter on social media. Sort of like what @dang does here.
It's probably somewhat possible to implement, at least to filter most of the trolls, since they follow predictable patterns similar to spammers. On top of that, you could plug some sentiment analysis on comments to detect the most negative/rude ones and either block them or make them appear with a lower priority vs other comments.
They blamed the devs for the price of Bitcoin not going up.
Often I just wished that core devs stop reading all this and share more videos that I can learn from, but I understand that they couldn't.
Thanks to matz for his kindness, and to other of the same kind.