A Software Project Full of "Male Anatomy" Jokes Causes Controversy

An anonymous reader writes with the story of a Github user's joke repository that is causing some controversy. "There's no question that the tech world is an overwhelmingly male place. There's legit concern that tech is run-amok with 'brogrammers' that make women programmers feel unwelcome. On the other hand, people just want to laugh. It's at that intersection that programmer Randy Hunt, aka 'letsgetrandy' posted a 'project' earlier this week to software hosting site GitHub called 'DICSS.' The project, which is actual free and open source software, is surrounded by geeky jokes about the male anatomy. And it's gone nuts, so to speak, becoming the most trending project on Github, and the subject of a lot of chatter on Twitter. And, Hunt tells us, the folks at Github are scratching their heads wondering what they should do about it. Some people love DICSS ... and some people are, understandably, offended. The offended people point out that this is exactly the sort of thing that makes tech unwelcoming to women, and not just because of the original project, but because of some of the comments (posted as "commits") that might take the joke too far."

Comments

Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar

[khayman80]

I haven't "baselessly" accused anyone of anything. I make sure I have very good bases when I make actual accusations. If anything, your comment was a "baseless accusation". And those emails were almost certainly not "hacked". Evidence strongly suggests the leak was an "inside job", as the saying goes See what I mean, folks?. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Good grief, Jane. Of course Sky Dragon Slayers like you mistakenly believe the emails were almost certainly not "hacked". And since you're almost completely incapable of admitting when you're wrong, you'll never be reasoned out of that position.

But surely even Jane can see that unless the scientists Jane was quoting and attacking "leaked" the emails, then Jane was using private emails to attack scientists. And apparently that's cool, but responding to public comments is illegal, unethical, despicable lowlife sociopathic behavior.

Janeland is a funny place. For instance:

... I mean look: you want evidence that this guy is short of a full load? Some of those comments are from someone he thinks is me, and not even from Slashdot. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

It's so adorable how Jane keeps hiding behind a pole.

... call it revenge for not getting to name Charon "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-07]

... If left up to me, I would have really, honestly, named new 9th planet "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-28]

... You're talking to somebody who thought that other rock should have been named "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-28]

I want the definition to go back the way it was. That way, maybe we will finally get to name its companion "Goofy", rather than that dumbass Charon moniker. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-28]

Dumbass Charon moniker? James Christy named Charon because his wife's nickname is "Char".

In fact, "Charon is informally pronounced "SHAR-on," similar to the name of the discoverer's wife, Charlene."

The man who discovered Pluto wanted to name its moon after his wife, and astronomers pronounce it "SHAR-on" to honor his choice. Why does Jane/Lonny Eachus call this a dumbass moniker?

Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar

[khayman80]

No. You do NOT get to take my words out of context, insert your own later comments around them, then try to argue that I said something I explained to you in plain English that I did not mean in the context you are trying to portray them. That's called LYING, man. Or worse. We already had this argument, and you lost. End of story. Go the fuck away, and leave me alone. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Once again, all I did there was substitute the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation. So if you're not disputing the definition of the word "net", you must agree with that simple substitution. Right?

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:

net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"

Once again, all I did there was substitute the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation. So if you're not disputing the definition of the word "net", you must agree with that simple substitution. Right?

And once again, would it really be so hard to take a few seconds to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? That's another way to see that you should consider using the standard physics definition of the word "net". If you ever learn how to use crayons in a coloring book, that is...

Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar

[Jane Q. Public]

Once again, all I did there was substitute the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation. So if you're not disputing the definition of the word "net", you must agree with that simple substitution. Right?

I neither agree or disagree. I'm not even reading your entire comments. I have no reason to.

I solved the problem we discussed using standard textbook radiative physics methods. I have ZERO reason to go back and try to do it the "Khayman80" way, which is not exactly what I would call "standard" methodology. The textbook way is fine by me and I'm sticking with it.

Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar

[khayman80]

I neither agree or disagree. I'm not even reading your entire comments. I have no reason to. I solved the problem we discussed using standard textbook radiative physics methods. I have ZERO reason to go back and try to do it the "Khayman80" way, which is not exactly what I would call "standard" methodology. The textbook way is fine by me and I'm sticking with it. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

One thing Jane said is true. Jane's never read my entire comments, or the comments by any other physicist.

But everything else Jane said is sadly wrong. Jane solved the problem using his own incompetent misunderstanding of his own textbooks. That's why inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation Jane's still adamantly rejecting.

Another independent way Jane could see that he misunderstood the "textbook way" would be to learn about how to apply conservation of energy. Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

If Jane would ever bother to read entire comments by physicists, or textbooks about basic physics, Jane would quickly learn that only power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.

It's just like crayons in a coloring book, Jane.