251–260 of 293 posts
PostgreSQL (I've always been hugely impressed by the team, though not myself a contributor).
It doesn't hurt that being very good with PostgreSQL is useful on a CV too. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Rust community is firm about technical correctness, like any good systems programming project. And, like any good and ambitious systems programming project, technical correctness is nonobvious and no one person is going to be right about everything all the time, because there's entirely too much to know and too much to keep track of. Unlike many systems programming projects out there, the Rust community has an av…
As a member of the Rust community, I value your opinion, however I am not at all sure where you've observed the above described behaviour. The Rust community is the first one I joined without fears of being put down by the community because of my lack of experience. The IRC channel is among the most helpful of any programming language I've seen so far, users.rust-lang.org gets multiple helpful responses to practicall…
There are a few people who think they need to argue loudly and harshly to be listened to (possibly because they've learned that that works in other projects). Those are the folks who are likely to see little patience but also little argument; they'll get downvoted on Reddit and ignored on IRC. Which is good for the community, since any effort spent arguing with them can be spent working with people who are actually there to learn.
The easiest example to see might be when people show up on IRC picking a fight (whether against something Rust does, or technically in favor and deriding some other language). They'll get one reply saying "Yes, but there are always tradeoffs and other languages are great too", one reply saying they're off-topic, and no more engagement. Which is not to say you can't show up on IRC asking for a language feature! As long as you don't say that anyone who leaves the feature out is stupid -- and again, most people don't say that -- you'll get a helpful response.
Scikit-learn is pretty great. Very appreciative, smart, and plenty of room for beginners.
Although, they seem to get alot of requests "hey i'm new here, what can i do?" So try to start with a more concrete question than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree to some extent, but it depends on the team though. From what I've seen there are many projects that aren't kind , but they aren't too unkind either. Or if they are unkind, it's not by conscious choice -- just what happens when you get people coming from other unkind projects. Not people who want the project to be unkind, mind you, just people who are used to that and okay with it. Such projects can benefit a lo…
From what I've seen of you in the Rust community, you might be one of the people who has the chops to actually make a large positive impact on a project's community. But for me, at least right now, without practicing a bunch, I think it would be futile and frustrating, and I suspect most people are in that boat.
Yeah, I'm not suggesting that anyone throw themselves into a toxic environment with the goal of fixing things. I'm not one of those people either (but I have tremendous respect for those who are). Just saying that it's not a dichotomy -- there's a lot of space in between kind and unkind for communities which are tolerable and can be improved. YMMV though :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"you endorse a behavior that is in and of itself toxic -- publicly crucifying somebody because you don't agree with their beliefs... it's downright disgusting." Lol, didn't take you long to become a hypocrite on that one! But seriously, "someone" and "CEO of a major corporation that relies on its good image" are different things. We rightly hold them to different standards. Holding unpopular (and exclusionary) politi…
I disagree sempai. Holding a CEO to a different standard than a common employee is a recipe for elitism. I will reiterate that a person's beliefs have no bearing on their ability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it very significant that Eich's supporters always reference "his beliefs" in the vaguest possible sense, and never "his belief that gay Americans ought to be denied various legal rights." Denying legal rights to a group of people is not compatible with Mozilla's mission or spirit.
> ought to be denied various legal rights I think you have to be a little more specific. If merely removing a former legal right is evil, who were the bad guys when a Maryland referendum removed the right to own slaves[0]? Yes, I went there, but hear me out. I think you need to talk about moral rights, not legal rights, because some legal rights came about because of bad laws or the court evolving the laws contrary t…
I think you have to be a little more specific. If
merely removing a former legal right is evil, who
were the bad guys when a Maryland referendum removed
the right to own slaves
It's certainly true that the slaveowners had the rug pulled out from under them in a sense but their legal right to own slaves infringed (to put it mildly) on pretty much every single human right the slaves had.
With same-sex marriage, on the other hand, it's very difficult to see how one person's consensual marriage could possibly infringe on another person's rights.
Also, if the correct position is that marriage in any
shape is a legal right, are we going to crucify people
who made polygamy illegal?
It's incredibly fallacious, though, to suggest that same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry simply because there's another tricky marriage-rights question out there. (If we discover that there's a wrongfully-convicted person serving time in a state prison, should we make him stay there because we haven't figured out what to do with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay?)
are we going to crucify people who made polygamy illegal?
Hopefully some things that you and I believe today will be viewed as positively caveman-like in 200 years. That's the price of progress.
I'm bothered by people adopting fashionable causes as a
reason to hate people who don't believe in them
I certainly don't hate Brendan Eich; he seems like a good person in general. Even if it was the right thing to do, which I think it was, nobody "won" that whole mess. The Mozilla community lost a great contributor.
___
[1] I believe you should be able to legally designate whomever you like as a family member and assign whatever family-related rights you want to them. The government should generally stay out of the morality business as long as everything is between consenting adults.
From a purely legal standpoint, titles like "wife" or "brother" or "cousin" are really just titles that confer various sets of default rights and establish a default order of precedence for inheritance and power of attorney. (On a personal level those titles mean much more to me than that, but that's my business)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The flip side, which you seem to endorse, is that people should have no way to censure (in the realm of public discourse or social opinion, not any legal sense) those whose views they don't agree with. Obviously, Eich had some widely unpopular views, and much of the country didn't agree with his beliefs. No one sued him, no one jailed him, people who didn't agree with him on a widely-debated social issue of the day j…
Yes. In my opinion, as long as someone doesn't try to preach KKK value in the community or come to community gathering wearing KKK robe, whether someone donates to KKK is beyond discussion.
I'm trying to figure out why--discussing the views held by your fellow citizen--that is a bad thing. I'm trying to understand how that advances any sort of democratic principle, to draw the line at "you can't talk about what I donate to".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree sempai. Holding a CEO to a different standard than a common employee is a recipe for elitism. I will reiterate that a person's beliefs have no bearing on their ability.
You hold CEOs to a different standard because they are the public face of an organization; their personal brand impacts the brand of the company. That's not elitism, that's common sense. If a common employee holds some unpopular opinion, why should anyone care? But if the CEO does, it damages the company, and the company should care about that.
Take a totally fictional example, a product manager at Intel who, on the weekends, has been leading neo-nazi marches and getting on the news. The reporters ask him, "what do you do to pay for all these flags and banners and tattoos?" "Oh, I work at Intel during the week. I'm a product manager in the networking hardware division."
Think how many weekends they'd give out that interview answer before Intel let them go for whatever reason.