"It's unthinkable that people who are not physically similar to me could understand me or imagine what my life is like, much less have any insight into my condition."
Sounds like "people who are not physically similar to me are p-zombies relative to me". By the same rule even our past selves are p-zombies relative to present selves, they could not possibly imagine our feelings as they lack the experience between then and now.
I started reading the article, having little background on kernel drama, and ended it thinking to myself, “Jesus, what did this poor guy do to deserve all this hate?”
Then I read the thread you linked and thought, “Oh. That.”
To be clear nobody deserves to be harassed or threatened, but Hector’s messages make it clear he is astoundingly good at making himself into a victim of injustice. When his messages mentioned “cancer” I immediately thought that meant another kernel dev told someone to get cancer or die of cancer or something, which would be completely unacceptable. He was using the word metaphorically to describe the way Rust is slowly making its way into the kernel, like a cancer growing.
How anyone (read: Hector) could think this requires CoC action is baffling to me. Insane language policing.
Is it possible to agree that having one’s work compared to cancer could be insulting but also that trying to publicly shame people about it isn’t the right response?
It seems at the heart of the issue is the vision for the future of Linux kernel.
One group believes it is Rust (progressives), one group doesn't believe that and wants to continue with C (conservatives).
If they cannot find a way to live at peace with each other, I think the only solution is for the Rust folks to start building the kernel in Rust and not try to "convert" the existing kernel to Rust piece by piece.
Why they cannot live in peace seems to be: a way that C kernel folks would not need to deal with Rust code.
At the core, the story is not that different from introducing new languages to a project.
You are introducing a new tax on everyone to pay for the new goodies you like, and those who are going to be taxed and don't like the new goodies are resisting.
Yes, before third-wave feminism every man in every relationship got along perfectly with all their wives’ friends and relatives. Those dastardly feminists!
You know, there’s a lot to be said about modern gender roles that isn’t total crap, but I imagine people read comments like this and start thinking the opposite
I’m someone who was, uh, skeptical of the DEI stuff. One of my biggest complaints was that it seemed to be much ado about nothing. Re-writing laws and policies to fill them with fluff.
This is EXACTLY the same thing, it is 100% virtue signaling and we are burning so much time, money, and goodwill on fucking bullshit nonsense
Meanwhile the economy is in shambles, the executive branch is systematically destroying the rest of the government, and China and Russia grow ever stronger and ever more disdainful of us
I would elect a black trans president in a heartbeat if I thought they could win the inevitable conflict over Taiwan. It IS an existential threat and the most immediate one meaning it is the HIGHEST PRIORITY
And before anyone starts pointing fingers I did not vote for Trump in any election
It isn't quite the same thing. There is a difference between trying to empower historically marginalized groups, and trying to re-subjugate historically marginalized groups.
Improving the opportunities available to people tends to improve economic productivity, so it's hard to argue it is a total waste of money.
On the other hand, removing mentions or attempts to improve inclusion of these groups in the face of rising racism and sexism has no real upside unless you're a racist or misogynist. Purges of this sort don't have any real economic motivations, it's pure ideology.
One was more of an investment, the other is more destruction.
Of course while the DEI scrubbing is dangerous to just some people, the scrubbing of climate-related language is just genocidal.
> It isn't quite the same thing. There is a difference between trying to empower historically marginalized groups, and trying to re-subjugate historically marginalized groups.
Not really. It's all language games.
This is just the mirror image of the liberal conceit they can magically change reality by forcing people to use different words or over-elevating some story (old or new) for ideological reasons.
The lesson from this is that it's all stupid, not just my-side's version, and it should stop.
> trying to empower
> tends to improve
> hard to argue
Lots of weasel words there.
> On the other hand, removing mentions or attempts to improve inclusion of these groups in the face of rising racism and sexism has no real upside unless you're a racist or misogynist.
Lots of absolutism there
It’s easy to argue it’s a waste of money if it is not effective. That being said, not all DEI initiatives are created equal (hah) - some are fine, some are useless but harmless, and some seem harmful.
That’s why the guy below me
> So if DEI language was bad, then correcting it should be a good idea
Is wrong just like you are, because DEI language isn’t universally bad or good.
The point that I’m trying to make is we should be worrying more about things like global warming and the economy and the dictatorships coming to murder us all, which anyone with a brain knows for 100% certain that there is a problem and that we have options to fix it. Unlike DEI where everyone has their own definition of what good is.
> the scrubbing of climate-related language is just genocidal.
100% agree. What Trump is doing is actively splitting the country and distracting from much more important issues
> What Trump is doing is actively splitting the country and distracting from much more important issues
I don’t have a dog in this hunt (I didn’t vote for either of them), but I think its fair to say that Trump seems to be pretty much trying to do most everything he promised in his campaign (which obviously attracted enough votes for him to win). Perhaps people just believe that politicians say a bunch of shit to get elected—then do something else and never expected this level of follow through.
Either way, this is what America voted for…and are apparently what we are going to get.
Health care can’t be solved by just throwing a shitload of money at it. I’m skeptical about food production as well.
Now quality transportation (trains and metros that work), cheap & accessible housing, and cheap energy might be a good idea because IIUC those are just super large price tags
If you’re at all worried that your social media feeds from any one website are ruining your mental health, I would suggest just not using them period. Why risk it?
I admit the article is rather whiny but it did resonate a bit with me.
A good example - we are provided free Keurig cups at work. Lots and lots of disposable plastic. At the same time there’s been quite a number of changes put in place to “be more green” and help the environment.
I asked my coworkers one day why we use Keurig machines instead of making a pot of coffee and everyone just shrugged. I asked the administrative staff if there was any plans to switch to grounds to reduce the number of Keurig cups and they basically said “No, that would be too much effort.”
In that moment, it really did just feel like everyone around me did not care, so I dropped the subject.
Here is my simplified take on it which will likely get me flamed.
Trust has many meanings but for this discussion we’ll consider privacy and security. As in, I trust my phone to not do something malicious as a result of outside influence, and I trust it to not leak data that I don’t want other people to know.
Open source software is not inherently more secure nor more private. However it can sometimes be more secure (because more people are helping find bugs, because that specific project prioritizes security, etc.) and is usually more private. Why? Because it (usually) isn’t controlled by a single central entity, which means there is (usually) no incentive to collect user data.
In reality it’s all kind of a mess and means nothing. There’s tons of bugs in open source software, and projects like Audacity prove they sometimes violate user privacy. HN-type people consider open source software more secure and private because you can view the source code yourself, but I guarantee you they have not personally reviewed the source of all the software they use.
If you want to use an open-source Android distro I think you would learn a lot. You don’t need to have a CS degree. However unless you made massive lifestyle changes in addition to changing your phone, I’m not confident it would meaningfully make you more secure or private.
It was a bit of a strawman question anyway; as someone who could review the source myself but wont (because the pain-to-utility threshold is way too high) I am then required to place my trust in some ad-hoc entity (the open-source community), that doesn't actually have a financial disincentive to make sure things aren't bad.
I have other reasons, perhaps, to prefer open source stuff, but I am not ready to assume it is inherently more private or secure.
Sorry, I lost some context in the thread or something because I thought you were asking as someone who legitimately didn’t know what open source was. Which I thought was kind of weird for HN but didn’t put two and two together.
reply