Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Abuse is indefensible

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 221 posts

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#211

Post by dang »

arguseyes wrote: post #206
delinka wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously, since your original post was downvoted to oblivion and flagged (neither of which I can do because you replied to me), I must be the one with the problem.

It has been downvoted and flagged because Americans can't deal with other people's opinion. I think that should have been clear by now. That's exactly the issue I'm talking about. They need to grow up and learn that their culture isn't the only one that counts.

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#212

Post by dang »

anonbanker wrote: post #210
dang wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't post uncivil comments to HN.

I'm normally pretty good with your moderation. This one's a little vague. I worry that if I apply this uniformly, it'll effectively ban snark from my postings. I'll do my best to honor your request, though.

Thanks for your openness here. You're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com if you want to discuss it further. Short answer is that snark in general doesn't break the HN guidelines (though it is deprecated!) but when directed personally it probably does.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#213

Post by dang »

x1024 wrote: post #148

So which is it? Does ranting have a huge impact that keeps people out, or does it "not have the power"? And if it's powerless, why are you so eager to censor it, then? Also, why don't you keep in your lane and only oppress the Go community with your code of conduct? There's no need to also invade Linux.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10506663 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#214

Post by dang »

x1024 wrote: post #162
enneff wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is both. It means the only people who stick around are those who can tolerate the childishness. This certainly reduces the number of capable people that are willing to contribute to the project. I don't care much how Linus acts since I don't work with him. Some people try to emulate him and I sometimes come into contact with them; that's not great for me, but far be it from me to tell Linus how to act on his own m…

If I have to choose between Linus yelling at me and you censoring any official discussion channels, I'd go with Linus every time. Now why don't you go back to your locked threads and enjoy the silence?

Please don't post uncivil comments to Hacker News.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#215

Post by anonbanker »

dang wrote: post #212
anonbanker wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm normally pretty good with your moderation. This one's a little vague. I worry that if I apply this uniformly, it'll effectively ban snark from my postings. I'll do my best to honor your request, though.

Thanks for your openness here. You're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com if you want to discuss it further. Short answer is that snark in general doesn't break the HN guidelines (though it is deprecated!) but when directed personally it probably does.

> deprecated!

totally using that in the future.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#216

Post by ubdj2 »

dudul wrote: post #47

"I am certain the reaction to this text would be entirely different were it written by a woman." Do we really need this garbage at the end of this post? How is it f-ing relevant? Linus' post was despicable in itself, everybody sees that except a few zealots. People are condemning it on this very thread, why do we need to throw this hypothetical gender bias BS? The rant was written by a man, it is needlessly rude and…

I agree with the parent. This article adds that in, what for? Does it bring anything interesting to the discussion? Is it even explained?

What a useless article.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#217

Post by mbrock »

chasing wrote: post #208
mbrock wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you think I made that error. Is it because I said "human right" that you think I was making a point about government censorship?

I read your comment above as saying this: "It's a problem that women are socially punished for being abrasive because I consider being abrasive a basic human right." It is a basic human right to use curse words, get angry, and come off as abrasive. That fact does not protect you from social punishment if you behave in a way that the people around you don't want to tolerate. Nor should it.

I meant to say if women are especially penalized in an unfair way that hinders them from other basic stuff like career and community. Of course people are free to dislike abrasive styles of talking. But combined with gender discrimination, it becomes a problem. I don't think men should be excessively punished for cursing either, but they generally aren't (in secular societies).

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#218

Post by strcat »

comex wrote: post #110

Personally, I think the suggested rewrite does a good job of defending the argument for ranting: http://catcode.com/comments/2015/cf20151101.html Compared to the actual rant, it's deficient in explaining Linus's viewpoint in multiple ways: - The phrases "The problem as I see it" and "I think", which I imagine Eisenburg added in an attempt to avoid jumping to conclusions or avoid making it personal or whatever, to me…

> By the way, I think Linus is full of crap: while the line at issue isn't great, the use of those overflow-arithmetic functions in general is a great idea, considering how easy it is to screw up a manual overflow check in C, and how ridiculously frequently this results in real security vulnerabilities (among other issues), including of course in Linux in the past. But that's mostly orthogonal to his manner of expression.

The overflow checking functions are very compelling for unsigned multiplication and all of the signed operations. It makes sense for unsigned addition and subtraction if it's already an existing pattern for the difficult cases, but I don't think it was a good way to introduce the functions. These are definitely the most optimized way to perform the checks across the board though, especially for multiplication. Linus is just making incorrect assumptions based on his lack of faith in compilers.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#219

Post by sooheon »

tptacek wrote: post #157
marrs wrote: post #118

As I understand it, the Linux codebase has hundreds of regular contributors and Torvalds basically spends his entire time reviewing patches to an operating system kernel that is used in countless mission-critical scenarios across the world. The implications of introducing a bug or security exploit to an OS kernel could be as severe as loss of life. With that in mind, I find myself wondering every time I read a report…

"Such an error"? What error?

Offense against Linus's aesthetic sensibilities.
Post reply on HN