I don't think there are many examples of people saying other people suck because their code is bad.
No, because that does not make sense. But people often suck _and_ their code is bad in addition. But there is a distinct correlation between the two, because people that do not suck tend to learn from experience and tend to get good at things over time. Quite a few people that suck already know everything (they think) or it is always somebody else's fault. Hence they are incapable of learning and never get good at anything.
As it stands, I agree with you, but that's not relevant here because your normal, sane reading is not what the activists intend to use.
This CoC is a preparation for a witch-hunt, plain and simple. And it is useful idiots like all these defending the CoC here that allow this to happen. Later they will claim they had no idea this would happen.
You obviously have not ever reviewed really bad code. The thing is that it takes very long to review in the form you describe. This is a DoS attack on the reviewer. Reviewers must be far faster than contributors or the system breaks down. That also means you cannot include detailed instructions on how to fix things. And it means you cannot do education of the incompetent.
It is. Giants dies lowly, but in 10 years the problems will become visible and after that slowly become really bad. I would be surprised if Linux is still relevant in 30 years. But there may well be a fork that is going strong and has all the actually competent people in it and a CoC of "We will not accept any fucking CoC!".
Indeed. The kernel is hardcore engineering. Its attached community cannot and must never be "open and welcoming". It must have harsh obstacles to entry, it must constantly verify quality of work and must tell those lacking to shape up or get out. The overall goal of technological excellence must be put far above individual sensitivities. Anything else means failure.
But the people behind this madness do not care what they destroy, as long as everybody behaves nicely. They do not care one bit about the project itself and will happily cause its demise as long as they can prevent the use of "bad words" and other unpleasantness. They are purveyors of scorched earth and utter failure.
Indeed. I do not even want this people on the same planet as me. They are incapable of solving any real problems and that is an extinction-level threat. They think that being an amateur with delusion puts you on the same level and gives you the same rights to contribute and discuss than an experienced engineer with specific domain knowledge.
We may as well start holding public votes on whether a patch gets applied or a piece of code is included in the kernel. Utter madness.
Now determine the "appropriateness" of criticism not from the technological merit (after all, "merit" is out), but from the impact on the target of the criticism. Hence a crybaby that delivers really bad code (there is a lot of those...) cannot be criticized anymore, because no criticism is appropriate anymore as it will hurt the target emotionally. Even ignoring such a person may be risky.
And what about "constructive criticism"? Is "I am sorry, but you do not even understand the basics, read an introductory text on the subject and come back" constructive or not? It is the factually correct response in many cases, it is constructive, but it can be regarded as impolite, because it identifies a flaw in the other person (and a way to fix it (well, usually not)). How are you supposed to tell these people that they have no part in a specific discussion? Right, you cannot. And hence you will have discussions of important issues with, say, 5 experts and 100 clueless amateurs and the experts will not be getting anything done anymore because they cannot kick the clueless ones out. In the end, what happens is that the experts leave and the clueless take over.
Merit can be estimated. It is a subjective estimation, not an exact neutral measure. However, doing a way with merit just because you cannot measure it exactly is the height of stupidity (which, incidentally, can also only be estimated). It is throwing the kid out with the bathwater. It is like saying, we cannot measure whether somebody is a good engineer (and we really cannot, see above), so we do away with trying and let just anybody in to building bridges, airplanes and kernels. Ultimately, it results in design by public opinion (the only thing worse than design by committee) and staggeringly bad decisions.
Jup. After all, anybody with a complaint will just be entirely truthful and never have their own agenda, right. This is made for sabotage and destroying reputations. I predict we will even see rape-complaints in this channel in short order, after all there is zero risk to the accuser.
You have no right to an opinion in the conformist's heaven. An opinion can always be construed as "discriminating" or "insulting" those that have a different opinion. Once you let opinions and, worse, views in, people need to have some level of maturity and personal robustness to keep communicating. Obviously the scum behind this CoC does not have that and instead want to be innocent and weak children that never, ever are confronted with anything not pleasant, because they cannot deal with that. In the end this is community over individuals and it is a very fascist idea.
Now, if you voted Trump, I will call you an idiot, and I may just ignore you, but kicking you of slashdot for it or some other form of repression against you would be very, very wrong.
Indeed. A power-grab by people that could never create anything like the kernel, but are desperately envious and want in. So they force their way in with underhanded and dishonorable methods and destroy the whole thing in the process.
This needs a decisive rebuff and a clear message of "You are not welcome here!" to these people. Unfortunately, it looks like that is not going to happen.
This is repulsive, insulting and stupid on so many levels it is staggering. And, look!, they even have the inquisition!
Interestingly, it fails its own standards (thereby stressing that whoever wrote this is stupid), because it mandates exclusion and repression against anybody that disagrees. A little fascist heaven.
Women being more average is pretty well-known. Of course, it is a distribution and the extremes are pretty much the same, which is why you get the occasional women who is a world-class scientist and the occasional women who lives on the street, but of both you get less than of equivalent men. You do not get a lot of either though and it is not suitable as a basis for any discussion of superiority. It is not clear to me whether that is done by conditioning by society though, and I think it may well be.
The comment that Role Models are "good to be in charge of things" is misleading and the evaluation expressed in it is faulty. It depends on what the person is in charge of. Running, say, a soup-kitchen and running, say, a research lab are two very different things and need very different people in charge to be a success.
"Actually work"? You mean like Windscale, TMI, Tchernobyl, Fuckushima? Yes, all cheap to clean up, nobody injured, and who cares about the waste that stays dangerous for millions of years. On top of that, the TCO of nuclear (if nothing blows up and you disregard the waste problem) makes it one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity.
Slashdot Mirror
Or really the right to be individuals for everybody.
I don't think there are many examples of people saying other people suck because their code is bad.
No, because that does not make sense. But people often suck _and_ their code is bad in addition. But there is a distinct correlation between the two, because people that do not suck tend to learn from experience and tend to get good at things over time. Quite a few people that suck already know everything (they think) or it is always somebody else's fault. Hence they are incapable of learning and never get good at anything.
As it stands, I agree with you, but that's not relevant here because your normal, sane reading is not what the activists intend to use.
This CoC is a preparation for a witch-hunt, plain and simple. And it is useful idiots like all these defending the CoC here that allow this to happen. Later they will claim they had no idea this would happen.
You obviously have not ever reviewed really bad code. The thing is that it takes very long to review in the form you describe. This is a DoS attack on the reviewer. Reviewers must be far faster than contributors or the system breaks down. That also means you cannot include detailed instructions on how to fix things. And it means you cannot do education of the incompetent.
"The end of Linux as we know it"?
It is. Giants dies lowly, but in 10 years the problems will become visible and after that slowly become really bad. I would be surprised if Linux is still relevant in 30 years. But there may well be a fork that is going strong and has all the actually competent people in it and a CoC of "We will not accept any fucking CoC!".
That will get you hauled before the inquisition board so fast your head will be spinning. You just caused somebody to feel bad!
Are you really so blind as to be unable to see where this is going?
Indeed. The kernel is hardcore engineering. Its attached community cannot and must never be "open and welcoming". It must have harsh obstacles to entry, it must constantly verify quality of work and must tell those lacking to shape up or get out. The overall goal of technological excellence must be put far above individual sensitivities. Anything else means failure.
But the people behind this madness do not care what they destroy, as long as everybody behaves nicely. They do not care one bit about the project itself and will happily cause its demise as long as they can prevent the use of "bad words" and other unpleasantness. They are purveyors of scorched earth and utter failure.
Which means he does understand the problem. Makes him excellently qualified to formulate that law.
Indeed. I do not even want this people on the same planet as me. They are incapable of solving any real problems and that is an extinction-level threat. They think that being an amateur with delusion puts you on the same level and gives you the same rights to contribute and discuss than an experienced engineer with specific domain knowledge.
We may as well start holding public votes on whether a patch gets applied or a piece of code is included in the kernel. Utter madness.
Now determine the "appropriateness" of criticism not from the technological merit (after all, "merit" is out), but from the impact on the target of the criticism. Hence a crybaby that delivers really bad code (there is a lot of those...) cannot be criticized anymore, because no criticism is appropriate anymore as it will hurt the target emotionally. Even ignoring such a person may be risky.
And what about "constructive criticism"? Is "I am sorry, but you do not even understand the basics, read an introductory text on the subject and come back" constructive or not? It is the factually correct response in many cases, it is constructive, but it can be regarded as impolite, because it identifies a flaw in the other person (and a way to fix it (well, usually not)). How are you supposed to tell these people that they have no part in a specific discussion? Right, you cannot. And hence you will have discussions of important issues with, say, 5 experts and 100 clueless amateurs and the experts will not be getting anything done anymore because they cannot kick the clueless ones out. In the end, what happens is that the experts leave and the clueless take over.
Merit can be estimated. It is a subjective estimation, not an exact neutral measure. However, doing a way with merit just because you cannot measure it exactly is the height of stupidity (which, incidentally, can also only be estimated). It is throwing the kid out with the bathwater. It is like saying, we cannot measure whether somebody is a good engineer (and we really cannot, see above), so we do away with trying and let just anybody in to building bridges, airplanes and kernels. Ultimately, it results in design by public opinion (the only thing worse than design by committee) and staggeringly bad decisions.
Jup. After all, anybody with a complaint will just be entirely truthful and never have their own agenda, right. This is made for sabotage and destroying reputations. I predict we will even see rape-complaints in this channel in short order, after all there is zero risk to the accuser.
Indeed. Perverted incentives and completely unsuitable priorities. A technological project cannot succeed with that.
You have no right to an opinion in the conformist's heaven. An opinion can always be construed as "discriminating" or "insulting" those that have a different opinion. Once you let opinions and, worse, views in, people need to have some level of maturity and personal robustness to keep communicating. Obviously the scum behind this CoC does not have that and instead want to be innocent and weak children that never, ever are confronted with anything not pleasant, because they cannot deal with that. In the end this is community over individuals and it is a very fascist idea.
Now, if you voted Trump, I will call you an idiot, and I may just ignore you, but kicking you of slashdot for it or some other form of repression against you would be very, very wrong.
Indeed. A power-grab by people that could never create anything like the kernel, but are desperately envious and want in. So they force their way in with underhanded and dishonorable methods and destroy the whole thing in the process.
This needs a decisive rebuff and a clear message of "You are not welcome here!" to these people. Unfortunately, it looks like that is not going to happen.
This is repulsive, insulting and stupid on so many levels it is staggering. And, look!, they even have the inquisition!
Interestingly, it fails its own standards (thereby stressing that whoever wrote this is stupid), because it mandates exclusion and repression against anybody that disagrees. A little fascist heaven.
Because they strongly imply somebody screwed up earlier, you know.
Women being more average is pretty well-known. Of course, it is a distribution and the extremes are pretty much the same, which is why you get the occasional women who is a world-class scientist and the occasional women who lives on the street, but of both you get less than of equivalent men. You do not get a lot of either though and it is not suitable as a basis for any discussion of superiority. It is not clear to me whether that is done by conditioning by society though, and I think it may well be.
The comment that Role Models are "good to be in charge of things" is misleading and the evaluation expressed in it is faulty. It depends on what the person is in charge of. Running, say, a soup-kitchen and running, say, a research lab are two very different things and need very different people in charge to be a success.
Damn, I fail at the original and now I fail at this too, because I use either less or more...
Hahahahaha, fail.
Apple-disciples are used to pay a lot. Just add a chiller to cool it and make the thing $1000 or so.
It is very expensive to generate power at such a huge scale. Your point?
You seem to be unaware of a concept called "storing power". That basically means you are living under a rock.
"Actually work"? You mean like Windscale, TMI, Tchernobyl, Fuckushima? Yes, all cheap to clean up, nobody injured, and who cares about the waste that stays dangerous for millions of years. On top of that, the TCO of nuclear (if nothing blows up and you disregard the waste problem) makes it one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity.
How old-school. Today everything must be blinking and beeping or it is not real, have you not heard?
In other news, I am waiting for a browser that has a "plain" no-bullshit mode, without quite going back to links or the like.