skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> What CoC enforcement eventually becomes is a prohibition on project contributors professing political opinions that the CoC enforcers find reprehensible.

To quote a comment I made elsewhere in the thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18001722):

If you want to argue about the level of taxation, the right size of government, regulations on business, whether public or private is the most efficient way to accomplish a goal, or myriad other areas of policy like those, go right ahead. Those kinds of things are absolutely reasonable subjects for healthy and reasonable debate. (They're rarely on-topic for a software project, but in some types of communities, or in companies, or in random side conversations, sometimes they are.) Those are almost never the kinds of political opinions that people have in mind when they're suggesting that "political opinions" should be an explicitly protected category, though.

It's funny how the people worried most about whether they'll feel unwelcome for their political opinions are often those whose political opinions revolve around making others unwelcome, or hurting others, or questioning (or asking with superficial politeness about) others' right to exist. Those kind of "political opinions" do not and should not get any protections, in a code of conduct or anywhere else. You're legally allowed to say them, but you should not expect to do so without any consequence.

> You don't need a CoC to get civil behavior.

If you're lucky enough to have a community that all has a common understanding of how to behave well and treat others well, perhaps. But even then, writing that common understanding down helps others in the future.

Usually, when we have undocumented information that people need to know, we call it "tribal knowledge", and we try to fix that by documenting it.
People may divide neatly into factions, but ideas don't. The notion that an un-objectionable code of conduct is somehow allied with a far-reaching political philosophy is reductive and unhelpful. What you're saying is that you'd be comfortable with Linus adopting a code of conduct that made exactly the same statements, so long as the word order was changed to keep it from literally being the Contributor Covenant.
If one can't pedantically correct people then why even bother being an expert.
It's not so much the fault of those who want small government, but actually the likes of Intuit, etc. lobbying against tax code simplification so they can protect their business models: https://www.propublica.org/article/filing-taxes-could-be-fre...
This reminds me of the "fun fact" that people throw around about tomatoes being a fruit.

Really there are two sets of terms - culinary and botanical. Botanically tomatoes are a fruit yes, but they are also a vegetable. And in the culinary context you would never use a tomato like a fruit.

The English language is defined by it's usage, and the same word can mean different things in different contexts. Dinosaur is used commonly to refer to Pterosaurs in the "general" context, so a Pterosaur is a Dinosaur in that context. If you were instead a biologist talking in the context of academia then a Pterosaur would not be a Dinosaur.
Which industry? There’s a lot of differences between, for example, embedded systems and database administration. Or HPC and mobile app development. Or even .NET and open source.
Can I ask how you got started, and why? Thinking about picking up knife making as a hobby and curious about your experience. Feel free to email me - address in profile.
I have a nested setup with a "meta" screen session with escape key ^Z, which holds named "project" screen sessions with escape key ^O.

I background tasks in the shell seldom enough (because I'm always in screen) that I don't regret ^Z being slightly less convenient. ^O is a fairly unknown but very useful insert-mode binding in vim, but I use emacs these days so I don't notice it being escaped.

Before I used separate escape keys, it was maddening trying to remember how many times to hit ^A to send commands to which nested session.
Except there is nothing intellectual about it. It's an article about what somebody believes GS was doing/thinking during the World War II and a couple of anecdotes. If you already know the premises (GS was a Jewish writer who lived in Vichy France where she also worked as a propagandist) you end the article like you started, knowing nothing more.

Besides, all "modernists" have done is produce __trash__ and it will be remembered as such no matter how deeply the humanities try to paint it as intellectual and deep, it will never reach the level of Caravaggio, Velazques, Rubens, Cervantes and the like. Nope, it will be forgotten because it's neither beautiful nor good in any objective sense.

It's not that tech/STEM people are intellectually empty, many people in STEM simply don't buy the bullshit.
> This license is trying to square the circle of having source
> code open to individuals who want to tinker with it and at
> most cover their costs, and those who want to build multi
> billion dollar empires out of it.

If the goal is to restrict which people use your software, then the solution is and always has been a proprietary license. Placing your software under a proprietary license allows you to say that specific companies can't use it, or people with specific political beliefs.

Open-source software can't be restricted to non-commercial use because that would violate the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd).

> Today we have the problem of centralized servers far more
> than of secret source code. The GPL can't deal with this at
> all, and the AGPL is one small step in the right direction.

You're free to choose a license that forbids commercial use of your software, or restricts use by businesses above some size threshold. Your software would then be proprietary software, not open-source, even if the entire source repository was public.
The Contributor Covenant says nothing of the sort. It is entirely reasonable for developers to believe that the statements in the Covenant are a baseline for professionalism and, at the same time to disagree amongst themselves about whether they should contribute to military projects (or whether they buy into a "post-meritocracy" philosophy).
Those are all fair points. Their Prime program used to be ridiculously generous in earlier days. However, I have a very very hard time thinking of someone, big or small, who does it better.
We're talking about Russia, not about other entities. What USA, Ghana or your local grocery store does or does not do is entirely irrelevant in the context of this discussion.
Perhaps you might prefer open debate or critique, but I think most people would prefer that negative speech not occur in public. I think even politely negotiated debates can end up looking embarrassing if other people who are watching can form a justifiably negative narrative.

When people are having a discussion in a visible business setting, to some degree, the precise words being spoken by either party become less relevant than the kinds of narratives people can form about either of you. It becomes a negotiation of PR rather than a discussion of ideas.
Yeah, I think that there's a line between being terse and assertive vs seeming to derive pleasure from going off on people. It sounds like Linus is recognizing that here and hopefully works on it some.
Why though? Even if your own app logs JSON, everything around it (the DB, the log collector, the metrics collector, the kernel, the LDAP server) most likely logs plain text, so you need to know regexes anyway.
Access to venture capital and/or the effort to get it in the first place. To European businesses it often seems like it is much easier to raise funds in the US. Investors also tend to be more conservative here.

B2C businesses traditionally need more funding to scale. Less funding, fewer B2C businesses. Bootstrapping a B2C business is even harder. B2B just makes more sense economically.
The Linux kernel Code of Conduct takes litigating the religious affiliations of kernel contributors right off the table.
C-o is moderately useful in emacs to move your current line down while the cursor stays on the newly created line.
No, but that doesn't make the phrase "the technique has been lost for centuries" any less true. Which is what the OP is questioning.
> I am going to take time off and get some assistance on how to understand people’s emotions and respond appropriately.

At the risk of being downvoted, I think that Linus, just like Steve Jobs, might have been dealing with a mild Asperger's syndrome[1], which he has very little control over:

"People with Asperger syndrome often have difficulty 'reading' other people - recognising or understanding others’ feelings and intentions - and expressing their own emotions. This can make it very hard for them to navigate the social world.

They may:

appear to be insensitive
seek out time alone when overloaded by other people
not seek comfort from other people
appear to behave ‘strangely’ or in a way thought to be socially inappropriate.

They may find it hard to form friendships. Some may want to interact with other people and make friends, but may be unsure how to go about it."

[1] https://www.autism.org.uk/about/what-is/asperger.aspx#Social...
If you're using fopen(3) "stdio" (buffered I/O), then yeah, fread(3) and friends will buffer. But if you're using open(2) and read(2), libc's not going to buffer that.
acknowledging your emotions is not being ruled by them.
Psycho alert
Classic text adventures online
Let me put this another way:

Abusive people are always, without fail, at their ugliest when there are no witnesses and they have plausible deniability.

I'm aware that dressing someone down in public has its own problems.
I was referring to
https://postmeritocracy.org/

As per the comment to which I was replying.
JAMF announces zero-day support for iOS 12, tvOS 12, and macOS Mojave
The freedom to propose ideas that don't offend anyone is no freedom at all. You're arguing that people can discuss among themselves what doesn't matter much, but only an ideologically correct few get to weigh in on topics that really matter.

This is the governing philosophy of the Ayatollahs of Iran, who let lay people debate and hold elections, but who reserve real power for themselves. What you've proposed is no different.
> There is a certain cost in time and energy required to separate yourself from harsh statements like that identify it as such.

It's not a "harsh statement", it's a joke. If anything it's flattering of that person's stature.

> While it's pretty easy to say, yes he's not suggesting physical abuse, the statement implies this guy is not going to cut me any slack, I can expect to get verbally attacked for missing something in my code, etc.

I don't think it implies that, but that's besides my point. The remark was represented as "advocating physical intimidation and violence", which given the actual context is basically libel. You're free to interpret anything you want about the personality of Linus from him making such jokes, but misrepresenting it like that in public is dishonest and harmful to discourse itself.
Picture an Erlang web-application server.

A request that causes a 500 error response to the client, should also produce an Error log output on the backend. The request crashed. But, because this is an actor-based system, that crash didn't affect anything other than the request. It was Fatal to that interaction, but not to the system.

A request that causes the entire server process to spontaneously halt, should generate a Fatal log message. That is never supposed to be something that happens. The system is built, on a number of levels, to ensure that it doesn't happen. But it'd be really great, if it does happen, to have enough information to know why.

Ideally, a Fatal log message is accompanied by a crash dump.
Centrelink, Australia's welfare and social services provider, has this beat. You can't get service in offices anymore without an appointment. If you try to do something transactional they direct you to a bank of Internet-connected computers where you have to go through their website. For elderly or less technologically literate people this is an absolute nightmare. If you can't do it online you have to call them. Again, if you try in their offices they will send you to a phone which you can use. Official average wait times are 16 minutes but that's bullshit. Everybody has had the experience of waiting for 2.5 hours, and then getting cut off when the robot answering the call inevitably transfers you to the wrong department. People have literally attempted suicide when faced with the prospect of having to deal with Centrelink again. Our government of sociopaths applauds this system, seeing it as a deterrent for people to be on welfare and encouraging them to "get a job".
I may be odd-man out here, but I really didn't see any part of his mind that needed to be changed. What did you disagree with?
Blame congress for the IRS - certain political elements would like to eliminate the IRS - they have this idea, that if we starve it, people will hate it so much we can make it go away.

Nevermind the fact that the IRS wont go away till there isnt an income tax anymore.
Good point. Here's another marketing image that illustrates what you're saying:

https://i.redd.it/gxmyxo2c5yf11.png

Just by looking at that you can intuitively see that the colored boxes in the previous image appear to be arbitrary. On the other hand, the previous image does seem to be trying to convey that a substantial portion of the die isn't shading units, even if the distribution is misrepresented.

>B) that said, looks more like 30% to me.

Was talking about RT and Tensor combined, not just RT.
(High school?) Maths: https://www.youtube.com/user/misterwootube
Once again: whatever the "post-meritocracy" philosophy is, it has nothing to do with the kernel Code of Conduct.
I'm not opposed to the adoption of this CoC. I think it's a positive for the Linux community, and I think it will be helpful (so long as Linus changes his attitude too). I would not like to see this ideological wedge driven any deeper into the gospel of the Linux community, however.
I hypothesize that this change will make Linux (ie: the quality of the kernel) at least slightly worse in 20 years than it would have been if Linus never changed.

Linus has been a great steward of the Kernel. I have never seen any instance where he has trashed on someone for any other reason than Linux. Sometimes he's cringingly brutal, sometimes he offends people. Regardless, he's been immaculately consistent in motive during the time I've been paying attention. That two decades of casual observation has elevated him to the status of philosopher king of the Kingdom of Linux in my mind.

When Linus publicly shames a person or company, he's emitting antibodies to the cybernetic organism that is "linux".

Some folks abuse politeness to press ulterior, self serving motives. It's a lot easier for viruses like that to thrive in scenarios where there's no social cost for rolling the dice.

For a contrived example, imagine there's a person that gets paid every time he convinces a project to change to a specific color of blue. Is this easier to accomplish in project with very strict codes of conduct, or with an asshole BFDL and a hierarchy?

Virus: "I've done research (<link>) that suggests that #006699 provides a superior user experience than what's currently being used. This is a PR to affect that change."

Maintainer: "Uhh, I don't think so."

Virus: "But why not? Here's another whitepaper that shows that it's literally the best UX change you could make. #006699 is inclusive and egalitarian and your current colors are racist."

The virus can press their intent as long as their persistence holds out. Any transparent, clinical mitigation to this will be gamed. However, if the BFDL is an asshole, the Virus thinks twice about social brute-forcing. If you're publicly berated when you cross the BFDL's threshold, you lose social standing. The mere threat of it hamstrings privately pressing your objective at those in the middle of the pyramid!

In addition, when done with _some_ discretion, your lieutenants will learn the implicit contour of your policies and priorities. This provides MUCH greater defense against subterfuge and unity of action than explicit Codes of Conduct.

Over the long haul though it doesn't really matter. Philosopher Kings are rare and they die. It does exasperate me to see how slow we are to develop a consciousness for that category of social attack.

When we finally do, it'll be a subtle compromise between authority and egalitarianism. It'll usher in a golden age with a seemingly endless frontier of optimism. Then, in less than a generation people will lose the plot, take it too far and we'll rot from the other direction.

TLDR; I wish Linus the best.
I'm glad. It's been a long time coming.

If the person I considered least capable of not being an asshole has developed self-awareness and has shown a genuine desire to change, then we have so much hope as a wider community.

It is definitely possible to retain the unyeilding attitude that Linus is famous for without being an asshole, and... I really hope he can pull this off.

I'm genuinely a bit emotional: this was wonderful to read.

(VM fixes are welcome, too!)
> Can it? How do you learn a piece for which you only have a sheet?

To be fair, guitar players seem to manage. I truly cannot understand how, though. Most guitar tabs are oddly silent on the topic of what to do with your right hand, and yet everyone uses them.
Heavy zoning has caused housing in many areas to be far more expensive than it needs to be.

The push for change is being driven by economists and activists, not software developers.

SB-827 in CA failed but it'll be interesting to see what comes next.

https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/s...
Please don't attempt to diagnose or psychoanalyze people over the Internet on Hacker News.
This is nonsense and willfully ignorant. Look at Libya, it's a failed state with an open slave trade [1]. USA did that. Iraq war is ~200,000 dead civilians [2]. USA and its allies are directly responsible for that. Every single time USA interfered in elections it effected hundreds of thousands to millions of civilians in their respective countries. There are even reports that USA meddled in Ukraine [3]. USA was instrumental in implementing Yeltsin [4]. You're ignoring literally every event in US history that effects foreign civilians, and frankly you're decieving others. Not to mention, you're ignoring all of the domestic issues that organically led to Trump that $100,000 in bipartisan Russian Facebook ads can't account for.

[1] http://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/

[2] https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26068994

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/05/americ...

https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrociti...
Well you piqued my interest, what's the difference?

I note that Wiktionary, and the Oxford Pocket Dictionary (which I believe is what Google use), consider them to be synonyms.

For example this from the latter's definition of "spiral" -

"winding in a continuous curve of constant diameter about a central axis, as though along a cylinder; helical.
synonyms:	coiled, helical, helix-shaped, corkscrew, curling, winding, twisting, whorled"
How Will Police Solve Murders on Mars?
I probably know about 5% of tmux, but I freaking love it. I've had a tmux session with 12 sub-windows running on a server for 300 days. I connect to it daily, from different machines. It works. It does everything.

I have no desktop application that performs at this level. So my hat's off to the tmux developers. Like many other great open source tools, it's a critical part of my toolset.
See my reply to that other comment. You are essentially acknowledging that you consider certain political opinions (which are, by the way, quite mainstream) to be so reprehensible that you're willing to use 1950s style industry blacklisting to suppress them.

This conduct was unacceptable then and it's unacceptable now. Nobody gave CoC enforcers a monopoly on virtue.
For binary, I like this better: https://youtu.be/zELAfmp3fXY
The IRS is three tiered Puerto Rican trust. Owned by foreign entities. It is no more 'federal' then the 'federal' (fictional) reserve.

So why are you surprised they outsourced their payment system?
You shouldn’t deal with the IRS yourself. Hire a lawyer. They have the relevant expertise and can handle things much more efficiently.
Hopefully this is not the beginning of the end of Linux as we know it today...
> I invest in my tools and learn a bit more than what I need to make them functional. This isn't always a tech deep dive- sometimes it's just being a "power user" and knowing the shortcuts.

If you (the asker) are using a Unix environment, I would recommend that you set up a weekly appointment, maybe every Friday, where you sit down and read a random manpage. Not for the sake of memorizing everything, but to learn what your tools can already do if you just remember to look up the right invocation when you need it.
I suspect this is simply not intended for learning pieces you haven't heard at least a couple times. This seems like the kind of thing you use if you just want to be able to play something you heard on the radio, maybe add some improv.
As my partner once put it, “you can be right or you can have friends.”

The truth is you can have both but if you put such a high importance on being right, all the time, then you’ll drive most people away.
MS-DOS Zork I 1980 in EM-DOSBOX
Linus Torvalds has created and led teams that maintain software that has made a better world and has improved my life. I am grateful that he has used his talents in this way. Can you imagine a world without Linux and without Git? I've read the supposedly scandalous emails that Torvalds has sent out, and I fail to see what the big deal is. Whoever convinced him that he needs to take time away from creating software to get training in how to coddle the emotionally delicate has done us a disservice.
I have a tmux session that's been running for almost a year with no problems. I don't know how long it will run, but perfect performance for almost a year is good enough for me.

My session has 8 tabs, and one of the tabs (my primary) has 14 sub windows (frames?) showing all kinds of good busy information.
Don't know about the details of the game, but what would be great is to have all the harassment that's a normal part of air travel be a part of this simulator.
Mayhaps read the article? It covers why this is a very dangerous way of thinking that is destroying the non-corporate open source community.

Here's the relevant part:

<quote>
In the end, license experiments are a threat, but not a threat to open source as defined. They’re a threat to what open source sought, as a movement: recognition and collaboration with business concerns producing proprietary software. Patches to existing licenses and license ideas don’t change how effective unpatched terms remain for other work. Rather, innovation threatens the symbiosis of open source orthodoxy and enterprise-procurement-bound proprietary consumption. Holding permission back reduces what the shepherds of open source can lead back to large company-consumers. Offering a compelling middle way that better balances concerns for smaller players reduces the number of projects that end up under pushover licenses, for lack of better-fitting options, ready for selective assimilation by big-company incumbents. Incumbents that prefer outlast and out-compete to contribute and compensate, when it comes to projects not invented here.
</quote>

>Your software would then be proprietary software, not open-source, even if the entire source repository was public.

This view reminds me of the bad old debate about the fact that GPL was not an open source license. "How can it be open if it forces me to do thing I don't like? The only open license is the MIT license.". A more or less verbatim quote from the 00s on why Linux was doomed and should be classed as proprietary software.