Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | MBCook's comments login

How has that dog not been reported to the authorities?

Because all the bites occurred in their home and to 'friends'.

Good people don’t wanna work with problematic people.

Look at what’s going on at Basecamp. When it came out just how problematic they were and if they weren’t willing to fix things, they lost 30% of their employees. Reportedly it’s now up to 40-something percent.

That's not an example because:

1. Basecamp is not OSS, and the people involved were all employees.

2. As employees, if you worked with someone for years,"it came out just how problematic they were" is a stretch.

'Problematic' is such a fantastic word. Labelling a person, in whole, as 'problematic' but we're the nice and inclusive ones.

For one, problematic refers to a behavior, not a person. If you find your behavior is causing problems for people, you can change that behavior (I encourage all employees/owners with a commitment to problem-solving to do this).

For two, when the word is used in the context of inclusivity, usually the problem is that someone is behaving in a way that's exclusionary -- it's not being nice to encourage them to continue that behavior.

> For one, problematic refers to a behavior, not a person.

They're literally responding to:

> Good people don’t wanna work with problematic people.


Labelling someone problematic is super exclusionary. Usually more so than the 'problematic' behavior.

Take a step back and it's cliques all the way down.

That's putting the cart before the horse -- in that context you would only see it used when the person's behavior already is super exclusionary. It's specifically used to describe that exclusionary behavior that has already happened. Of course people can get it mixed up but that's the job of the people doing the community management to make sure that doesn't happen.

The comment I responded to said "how problematic they were" -- not "they were being".

And it was about a case where a funny names list had circulated, the founders said "yeah, don't do that" but then objected to holocaust references in the reaction to it. This was extremely 'problematic' -- not the references, the objection to them.

So, exclusionary to whom? Some people might value not dragging the dead into a dumb debate about a funny names list. It's not unreasonable.

I didn't make that comment, I agree that comment could have been worded better. I'm assuming by the use of past tense they didn't mean to suggest that they are inherently problematic for life. Edit: I don't have any additional comments on this particular happening, I believe there was several other HN threads with more than 1000 comments where this was discussed extensively.

But even the actual disagreement they had at Basecamp was small fry, angels on the head of a pin level stuff.

Would you break out 'problematic' to describe that? How small is the circle of non problematic people?

You would probably see people using it any time a lot of people feel alienated by the behavior.

Usually I see good community managers as people who go out of their way to be agreeable to the whole community, helping to reach common ground and consensus. That's their job, to solve those people problems. The size of the circle is whatever your community defines it to be, for some communities it's obviously easier to find consensus than for others. Example from the reddit post: Linux people seem to be fine with both GPL and BSD license, but BSD people seem to view GPL as problematic. So practically speaking it seems it can be easier to reach consensus in Linux, around some particular code licensing issues anyway (Please don't start a flamewar about this, I personally don't take any sides here when it comes to licensing).

I appreciate your earnest engagement here.

I think 'problematic' when discussing legal terms of a license is a lot less loaded than 'problematic' about a person, or personal behavior if we want to narrow that down.

It raises questions of who gets first right to be alienated. And do we credit their alienation. If I said I feel alienated by the constant social justice signalling, do I get credit for my alienation? Or do I get the stinkeye and maybe fired?

Practically speaking I don't think it's less loaded, for example if someone working on something decides suddenly that they're switching license to GPL, that has historically caused problems for BSD in the past (more than once).

It's really difficult to continue this conversation if you view the concept of justice to be alienating, what is open source if not a means to deliver code to large groups of people who would otherwise be alienated from working with that code? I don't understand. If you're not interested to help customers and be fair and just to them, I would think you would have a hard time working at any company. What is your real goal?

I view cliques as alienating, like I said above. Of course I'm for 'justice', but it's such a fuzzy word that people can have different views of what is just.

If you conducted a gallup poll, what % of Americans do you think self-identify as "I find justice alienating"?

Most reasonable people are for justice and caring, and the vast majority aren't out to find people they can label as 'problematic' and chase them off the island.

>the vast majority aren't out to find people they can label as 'problematic' and chase them off the island.

To me that it always the problem that has faced any minority groups anywhere -- it's never obvious to the majority what the alienating behavior is. So they have to painstakingly explain it, and of course some of them will always get accused of overreacting and attacking the majority. What else can be done?

I suppose we'll have to take it case by case. Sometimes someone was wronged, but much more frequently, they wanted their politics agreed to 100% and someone had a slightly different worldview, let's try to get them fired.

There's no consistency, which really ruins the label 'justice' for me. Conservative star wars lady compares conservatives being criticized to the holocaust? Fired. How dare you disrespect the dead. Basecamp people bring the holocaust into an equally stupid argument? They're heroes, everyone else is problematic.

Oscar Wilde had a quote about how patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel.. maybe we should update it to "calling people toxic is the last refuge of the antisocial". Not that sincere patriots and activists don't exist, of course.

I personally wouldn't take these incidents on twitter as indicative of anything, there is quite a lot of information missing there. You or I probably don't know the full history of the company or what transpired for it to get to that point, only the people who experienced it firsthand really know that. Social media is its own community that is really good at turning things outside itself into polarization and outrage, it's not what a community manager for some open source project would usually turn towards in order to solve problems within a community. Leave twitter's problems to twitter.

Evil are created by those who felt themselves as so righteous.

- Me

That’s the case for this podcast. For now.

I too love 99PI but if I ever have to use the Stitcher app I’ll drop it in a hot second. Same goes for any other podcast. Stitcher, Spotify, NPR, Apple, anyone.

If I can’t use the app I like, it’s not a podcast and I won’t go through the effort. There are too many other good podcasts waiting in the wings.

> This Saturday, the UMN research team apologized to the Linux community via an open letter posted to the Linux Kernel Mailing List. The nearly 800-word open letter comes across as more "wait, you don't understand" than apology:

Wow, it really is a non-apology. They spend far more time defending themselves and don’t really seem remorseful at all. At no point did they say they seem to have punished the people involved or changed the process that allowed this research to be conducted in the first place.

What I don't understand is what the theoretical endgame would have been here?

Putting the circumstance aside that their submissions are effectively indistinguishable from malicious content (and should be treated as such anyway), if you stay in their line of "it's just research", then getting banned is just another possible outcome that should have been expected as a possibility from the beginning, no?

What they are doing now is basically saying "Yeah we know we did this to see whether actors like us get blocked, but you see, it's US, we should clearly get different treatment".

The thing that really confuses me is they keep pointing out that the research was done in fall of 2020.

Like that matters.

Like they got away with it and the statute of limitations should be up and they shouldn’t be punished at this point.

The ban happened now because GKH got fed up with a different researcher from the same group who was submitting (qualitatively) bad patches and said that it looked like a continuation of the "Hypocrite Commits" work, which the kernel team strongly objects to.

Thus it's a relevant clarification that only small set of patches in 2020 belonged to that project, they did not continue it, and the recent patches are not related to it and are merely bad, not malicious. (Of course the student should have done a better job with that, but it's a categorical difference between him also trying to trick people vs merely messing up and getting in extra trouble because his advisor pissed off the kernel team earlier)

They are trying to correct misinformation that has been flying around, by stating the facts clearly.

They weren't blocked for submitting bad patches. They were blocked for admitting they submitted bad patches.

Interesting. Works on Safari on iOS.

Doesn’t work on Safari iOS if you’re behind a pihole/ad blocker. Why are they looking up User Agent from a third party?

Seems odd. Probably analytics or something.

My understanding of the story is Steve Jobs just decided to say that when he announced it without checking with the lawyers, and it probably ran into patent problems.

Ah okay. I know he announced it without checking first. It would have been nice for Apple to clarify why it could not happen. Hard to give the corporation that just gutted advertising for other companies while now pumping their own ad network up, any benefit of the doubt that isn’t a cynical view.

Redux Toolkit is the suggested way to use redux these days and has immer built-in.

Root cause? No. There are many reasons.

Gas on the fire? Sure seems like it from all the studies that have been done in the last few years.

Let’s just pretend that all bitcoin mining was done in data centers.

That means that whatever practical good bitcoin provides, we’ve DOUBLED the energy usage of data centers.

Is that good worth having to build that much additional capacity?

What about the problem that bitcoin keeps increasing it’s energy usage?

And finally, is there no more efficient (in energy usage) way of doing the same thing?

You can probably tell that I'm a Taleb fan, but it seems that whatever we have in place for doing the same thing is rotten to the core. What happens when we get hit 2x or 4x as hard as 2008? The way financial systems are structured today is the problem, and decentralization seems to be the only answer. Bitcoin is exactly that.

Bitcoin's future value may end up being no more and no less than helping us preserve a functioning world economy given an unprecedented financial crisis. Is that worth double the energy of data centers? Yes, because without it you will have 0 data centers.

Solutions will have to be implemented to curtail that energy use. Could be better power sources, could be more efficient consensus mechanisms.

It’s still a problem. And getting worse.

There's a certain type of person that applies this exact phrase to everything they ideologically oppose.

They're joyless and authoritarian.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact