We put the question mark in above. That's a standard moderation tactic we use when a headline makes a dramatic statement that we have no way of verifying.
The statement in the OP's title breaks the HN guidelines by being misleading (presenting an allegation as fact) and baity (by using sensational language like "betrayed"). Putting "Petition:" in front does mitigate that, but not enough in my view.
If anyone can suggest a better way of solving the problem in this case, we'd be happy to change the title again.
I perceive the question mark at the end of the headline to mean that A) the author believes this but doesn't want to be "on the record" for something that lacks evidence, or B) the author doesn't believe it and just wants clicks.
An imperfect solution used by newspapers is to put the source of the allegation at the beginning: "Montoya: You killed my father" or "Sources: US plans to invade Canada".
Either way, some damage will be done by false headlines. The question is just whether you can signal to HN users that the article is speculative.
Personally, I would prefer a declarative headline with a modifier like "allegedly" rather than a question mark. I also like the idea of attribution--"Fight For the Future Alleges Facebook Is Lobbying for CISA."
but the number of women in tech is growing slower than the number of men in tech.
To be fair, its not that "its cool now, so they want in the party", its actually that so many women just dont want in. I dont understand acting like the whole world needs to change because their are trends in peoples personal choices.
>I dont understand acting like the whole world needs to change because their are trends in peoples personal choices.
This is because feminism has become dominated by a very specific branch that renounces essentialism vehemently. Their a priori position is that there are no differences between men and women, other than those which are socially-constructed.
Of course, this is a sociological and political theory, whose followers often mistake for a scientific one.
Just to make sure we're on the same page... Consider these two options:
1. "sssilver, you are a fucking moron. I'm amazed your ancestors managed to not only crawl out of the primordial soup, but to reproduce successfully enough times to bring you into existence. Christ, think about your code before submitting your pull request."
2. "This code has several memory leaks. Function bar_baz() returns a pointer to a stack-allocated data structure. On line 32, you've got a likely null-pointer dereference. There are several other problems as well. Go find some reference material or someone to help you improve."
You'd prefer to get #1 as feedback rather than #2? #2 is direct and blunt, but not full of personal insults.
I'd like both. #1 adds some levity and humour; #2 gives me the technical details.
Perhaps if it was personal, like pointing out that I consistently do terrible work and really am not cut out to be a dev, then yeah that might hurt. Though more because the intent is that I shouldn't contribute, full stop, not just improve my work.
Though I suppose it's because there aren't any impersonal insults that'd bother me. Whereas being a member of another group that gets sincere bigotry aimed at it - yeah that might be incredibly frustrating. No one believes Linus wants to actually travel through time and perform abortions, nor would it make anyone think to do such a thing. But a "this proves women should really avoid engineering and stick to cooking" is something that many people actually believe and reinforces that thinking.
Edit: Though it'd need to be clear that this is the environment, that such strong feedback is not personal. If this was just delivered to some new hire with no warning, then it might come off the wrong way.
I would perform better with #1, because it'd motivate me a lot more.
With #2, the only thing that's at stake is the particular problematic code. With #1, my whole ancestry and evolution is being questioned, and I'm gonna make damn sure I perform well enough to justify my very existence. I know it sounds creepy, but that's how it works with me. Especially if the feedback is coming from someone I have immense respect for.
I hope you don't get downvoted. That is an exceptionally fascinating answer for me! I wouldn't call it creepy at all, just... unusual. It took a fair bit of effort for me to come up with at all, given that #2 is my typical feedback approach. I have a feeling that giving #1 as feedback on a student's assignment would result in a disciplinary hearing. :)
Very fascinating! Thanks for giving me something to chew on!
For me, there are different kinds of "works" at play here. If the question is what produces dramatic, short-term improvement, an abusive approach quite often works wonders. But over the long term, that's thoroughly corrosive. Fear isn't a sustainable motivation when people have other options. (Which is why serial abusers also end up being very controlling; they need to eliminate the options.)
sssilver, you are a fucking moron. I'm amazed your ancestors managed to not only crawl out of the primordial soup, but to reproduce successfully enough times to bring you into existence. Christ, take a moment to realize that just because you have a masochistic desire to be abused by your coworkers doesn't mean everybody else feels the same way. And your stupid desire to suffer assholes is just setting yourself up for a life of being shit upon.
#1 is far more likely to make an emotional impression than #2. That might be for good (one avoids making such bad mistakes again) or bad (one avoids making any contributions again). It's certainly more memorable.
I came up with it trying to think of something vicious that contained absolutely no insight about how to be better. It doesn't actually have any information about what the bad mistakes might be. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole idea that that'd work for some people.
Well, a real-life example would contain both disrespect and information about the mistakes, and how to do better. Something more like, 'How could you possibly be so stupid as to use the same memory location to store the car's current radio station and the desired fuel-injection rate, controlled only by a flag in another piece of memory? Didn't it occur to you that someone working on the entertainment system code might never even think of checking for a flag related to speed & safety? Dear God, Smith, do you realise how many people you could have killed? I can only hope that your other mistakes have prevented idiots like you from being born and placed into positions of trust, you sorry misbegotten excuse for an engineer!'
Harsh, but I bet Smith would remember that moment well, and be more careful in the future. Or he might quit, and never write automotive-safety-impacting code again.
Which is, I think, a mistake; by and large, the best of harsh feedback is more 'both' than 'either/or' - i.e. it might include a fair chunk of yelling but there's also actionable criticism therein. Certainly if you look at Linus' rants the ranting is to emphasise the criticism, not to act as a substitute for insight.