251–260 of 302 posts
Notably this project was conceived by a backroom decision to dump the original Freenet development team's work, in favor of a rewrite from different developers, without asking anyone on the original team. It was an ivory tower decision which was announced on the mailing list without prior discussion. The old team did not agree, yet it was forced through by a decision of the "board". The "board" was a group of people…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make claims. Release the books, and people can then verify what you say. If you do not release the books, it is only natural for many people to suspect something wrong.
It isn't "natural" to make baseless accusations based on zero evidence.
The fact that evidence is not provided, if anything, is an indication of potential wrong doing.
I also note that you did not actually respond to what I said. This is additional indication of some potential wrong doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Though reusing the name for an entirely different project with a different codebase is disingenuous to say the least. Same project, same goals, and it's not even the first time we started with a fresh codebase - we did it in 2008. > That won't do his reputation any good, especially in a field where reputation matters. This drama never comes up anywhere except HN where it seems to be the obsession of a small number…
> Same project, same goals Many on here beg to differ.
Interestingly, there seems to be very little overlap between the people giving substantive technical feedback and the people most upset about a 3-year-old naming controversy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This is blatantly false. * You made the mailing list post on 22 Jan 2023. * Elon Musk first used the phrase (on Twitter, at least) on 19 Dec 2021. [0] * As of May 2022 at the latest, he was regularly using it in tweets, including ones with tens and hundreds of thousands of likes. [1][2][3] * By the end of 2022, "woke mind virus" was well-known enough that other users were cracking jokes about it. [4][5] [0] https://x…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't "natural" to make baseless accusations based on zero evidence.
Of course there is. Anyone is completely justified in asking what their politicians do, how their non-profits spend their money, or what ever. The fact that evidence is not provided, if anything, is an indication of potential wrong doing. I also note that you did not actually respond to what I said. This is additional indication of some potential wrong doing.
No, that's not how evidence works.
You're starting from the assumption of wrongdoing and then treating the lack of evidence as confirmation of your suspicion.
Meanwhile we've spent the last 5 years publicly building a working decentralized platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How was that "wrong, harmful, or dishonest" - specifically?
Why would I answer that when you already said one statement being wrong doesn't matter? If one statement being wrong doesn't matter then why are you changing your mind and asking? Would there be any point in replying? I've met a lot of folks in software who think contradicting themselves in order to "gotcha" the other person is some form of being clever. You can't really have success reasoning them out of it; they th…
I never said that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is blatantly false. * You made the mailing list post on 22 Jan 2023. * Elon Musk first used the phrase (on Twitter, at least) on 19 Dec 2021. [0] * As of May 2022 at the latest, he was regularly using it in tweets, including ones with tens and hundreds of thousands of likes. [1][2][3] * By the end of 2022, "woke mind virus" was well-known enough that other users were cracking jokes about it. [4][5] [0] https://x…
Apparently you follow him a lot more closely than I do, nonetheless I stand by my point even if I might use different words today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "If you think a specific statement was wrong, harmful, or dishonest, then explain why" > someone picks a specific statement > "If the use of a single phrase... is enough to make you dismiss someone entirely" Bro, you asked for a specific statement. Was GP actually supposed to provide N specific statements, where N is a hidden number known only to you?
How was that "wrong, harmful, or dishonest" - specifically?
It's dishonest because it pretends that people behaving in a way that you don't like are somehow infected by some (literal or metaphorical) contagion, when I am not aware of any evidence that this is the case.
I'd be delighted to be proven wrong on either of the above with studies or other serious sources. I'll wait.