Yes I have read the stories that people always point to as their “proof”, and 1. I think everyone twists his (poorly chosen) phrasing to fit a specific narrative that is not reflective of any actual intent, and 2. I don’t believe he actually wants to hurt anyone.

As far as I know, nobody has confronted him about these posts and gotten any clarification of his intent, they just want to crucify and not believe any other perspectives because it fuels their confirmation bias.

The “wild comment” (according to someone) I made elsewhere about his London post:

Of course Brits don’t want to become a minority in their home country… who would? We all know how badly they are treated

To me, complaining about too many immigrants does not inherently imply someone is racist, xenophobic or claiming anyone doesn’t have a right to exist (the most common criticisms I see from his “proof” posts) as countries do need a healthy balance of immigration to work well… too much or too little can both be problematic for several different reasons that have nothing to do with where they came from or what they look like.

Imagine if people called you racist simply because the community/culture you grew up around is what you’re used to and no longer what’s all around you, and you never asked for such change… of course some people won’t like it, but that doesn’t mean they dislike the people themselves, just the situation.

What in the name of AI insanity is all this unrelated code.

I’m not playing defense for any particular perspective, I just try to understand all sides and get other people to see different perspectives before forming their own opinions.

There’s no good reason to hold strong principles vaguely except obfuscation.

As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding.

your argument was cowardly

If you can’t argue your position without attacking a person’s character, you already lost the argument.

I think you missed the first part of my comment though.

Being “better” (which is subjective) doesn’t mean any other positions are automatically intolerant or “fascist.”

I think people are grossly misunderstanding his intent and framing it in the worst possible interpretation.

DHH never said he wanted anyone dead. He never said to shoot anyone. He never said anyone shouldn’t exist.

It’s natural to not want to become a minority yourself. We know how badly they are treated. People often have natural preferences for their own culture and people, and they can still want those things while also acknowledging other people can exist… but not everyone agrees on the most appropriate balance.

Mass immigration undeniably brings with it certain logistical, economical and cultural aspects to the table.

I have no problem with any specific people immigrating to my country, but that doesn’t mean I want all my local culture, friends and favorite restaurants to be replaced with everything else from another country. You need balance.

Even if someone faced with that same situation said something tone-deaf like “these <insert race> need to go home”… that doesn’t necessarily mean they want them dead or that they think they don’t have a right to exist, or even that they are racist. They might just not like change in general, or like I mentioned, they feel like part of their (local) culture is disappearing. They just might not have the best way of articulating that.

And similarly, I think we should not be so quick to judge their intent without actually talking to them about it.

Then why say it in that way if you don’t disagree? To me it sounds like you’re specifically trying to paint the company in a bad light.

Their priorities dont align with the staff.

Perhaps they simply disagree with the staff? Again that doesn’t make them wrong. It’s possible the staff are simply misinformed on the real intent of what he was trying to say.

Of course Brits don’t want to become a minority in their home country… who would? We all know how badly they are treated.

Just because someone can’t articulate their thoughts in the friendliest way, doesn’t mean they deserve to be hanged. And just like what Karimov said, no single person gets to be the arbiter of what everyone else’s priorities should be.

This is like saying only certain people should have free speech. My argument was not about any particular perspective.

The paradox clears itself up if you look at what tolerance actually is. It’s simply not interfering with people’s agency over themselves. Given that your right to self-agency doesn’t entitle you to restrict others’ self-agency, behavior that does try restricting others’ agency is automatically not included in “tolerance.”

I want them banned from our communities

So you want to call people fascists and nazis while also excluding people whose opinions you don’t like? The irony is downright wild.

To reiterate what Karimov said:

people have different personal opinions. You believe in your heart that DHH is evil, that you have the moral high ground, and that nothing will change your mind. However, not everyone believes that. It is not fair to claim a monopoly and ostracize team members who might disagree with you.

Just because it’s a for-profit operation doesn’t mean they’re wrong, though.

IMO Being open to the idea that multiple valid perspectives can exist simultaneously, is a much more reasoned and intelligent position than “I don’t give a shit what either of them said.”

I (don’t) like how this comment completely dismisses and bulldozes through everything Karimov said, which was brilliant by the way, and is a sentiment sorely missing from the majority of comments in all this drama.

Open source isn’t counterculture anymore, sorry but it has gotten too big to fit in your backpocket.

I understand you disagree with some of the people using and writing it now… but if that’s the case, perhaps communities using a different kind of license would be better suited for you if you cannot get along with them?

I feel like the author is trying to point out some kind of hypocrisy while also feeding into one themselves… if open source was supposed to be for everyone, well, that includes people you don’t like. And you’re not going to change their opinions any more than they can change yours.

At what point is it still open source, if it downloads without your permission a proprietary component that is used to run the software?

Runtime behavior has nothing to do with the license of the code. If all the code is available for you to see, then legally speaking the terms of the license are fulfilled, there’s nothing inherently illegal or infringing about downloading freely available software, even if it’s proprietary.

I would clone that repo across several different forges as well. For sites hosted in the US (like github), anyone can just email a fake (or real) DMCA 512(h) request to get it taken down immediately, because those are required by law to respond immediately by taking the content down well before there is ever any chance of appealing or fighting the request, fake/legal or not. This is a relatively new approach some very angry keyboard warriors have been using. It could take months for a fake request to finally get quashed through the court system properly. And fighting any of these takedown requests also forces you to legally doxx yourself in the process.

the linux kernel is used in nuclear missiles

source:

Conversely… if it’s so benign, why should it have a label?

Why is immutable a requirement?

Who said anything about critical?

I just don’t want my hard disk wiped when I decide to try a piece of software.

Security updates if you use it online or copy new binaries to run on it. Even if you’re not worried about hackers, there can still be viruses and malware that destroy your data.

Lots of retro enthusiasts still use legacy hardware for all sorts of reasons… I fear that a fork of the kernel will be necessary in the near future to keep these machines running.

The notion of using Linux to revive old hardware and keep it out of the landfill may not last forever…

no

problem is php 7 is about 10 years older than 6 7 :p