So if you follow the link that you're quoting there, you'll get your answer:
That said, I do think that this is contrast to the Noordhuis incident. I know that this position is not popular here (and that I will be downvoted into oblivion), and that it's likely foolish to revisit this, but just to make clear my position: I am understanding (very understanding, given my own history) of gaffes made on the internet. The Noordhuis issue, however, was not a gaffe: it's not that he rejected the pull request (that's arguably a gaffe), it's that when he was overruled by Isaac some hours later, he unilaterally reverted Isaac's commit. (And, it must be said, sent a very nasty private note to make clear that this was no accident.) This transcended gaffe, and it became an issue of principle -- one that I feel strongly about. So what I wrote at the time was entirely honest, and it is something that I absolutely stand by -- more than ever, actually.
I wrote that in 2015, and still feel that way in 2023 -- up to and including that I feel that way more than ever. (That is, I feel more strongly about this in 2023 than I did in 2015.) The world has changed quite a bit since 2015, and I daresay that the incident wouldn't repeat itself because I really doubt that Noordhuis would repeat his actions.
Getting into a revision war is bad behaviour, but it looks like Isaac rather than Noordhuis was the first to do that.
But let’s ignore your efforts to reframe the second situation, and focus on the the thing people are critical of you for: writing a blog post about someone that doesn’t work for you stating “if he worked here he’d be fired”.
This was the second example you came to many people’s attention, the second time with an empty display of machismo.
It seems odd that that the person from “I get more girls than you” when losing a technical argument and “you’re fired” when someone doesn’t work for them - would complain about “SV tech bro” culture.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that we're relitigating an incident from a decade ago, but certainly noted that you disagree with the handling of the Noordhuis incident so strenuously that you are unwilling to acknowledge anything else that I've said or done in the last decade. I personally think that that itself is revealing of your own character, but I think it best to let everything here speak for itself.
That said, I do think that this is contrast to the Noordhuis incident. I know that this position is not popular here (and that I will be downvoted into oblivion), and that it's likely foolish to revisit this, but just to make clear my position: I am understanding (very understanding, given my own history) of gaffes made on the internet. The Noordhuis issue, however, was not a gaffe: it's not that he rejected the pull request (that's arguably a gaffe), it's that when he was overruled by Isaac some hours later, he unilaterally reverted Isaac's commit. (And, it must be said, sent a very nasty private note to make clear that this was no accident.) This transcended gaffe, and it became an issue of principle -- one that I feel strongly about. So what I wrote at the time was entirely honest, and it is something that I absolutely stand by -- more than ever, actually.
I wrote that in 2015, and still feel that way in 2023 -- up to and including that I feel that way more than ever. (That is, I feel more strongly about this in 2023 than I did in 2015.) The world has changed quite a bit since 2015, and I daresay that the incident wouldn't repeat itself because I really doubt that Noordhuis would repeat his actions.