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

Linus Torvalds: 'I'll never be cuddly but I can be more polite'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 483 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds: 'I'll never be cuddly but I can be more polite'

#341

Post by taeric »

JohnBooty wrote: post #323

> I'm still not exactly the most empathetic person. > But I'm hoping I can at least 'fake it until I > make it'. This is great! If you ask me, "faking it" is really just as good as "actually" being a more helpful or empathetic person. What do you think "actually" being a helpful or empathetic person is like? It's basically just continually expending the effort to be helpful and empathetic. Let's say my brother calls…

Depends entirely on how good you are at faking it. That is, if it can be easily seen that you are faking; then no, it is not as good. Not even close.

Your brother scenario is silly. If someone calls and I don't want to help, but can. I'll be honest and make my own choice. If they ask if this is what I'd truly like to be doing, I'll always say no. However, in most cases, I don't actually care what I'm doing. Could I come up with something more fun? Maybe, but just being social in any way is typically its own ends.

Re: Linus Torvalds: 'I'll never be cuddly but I can be more polite'

#342

Post by blihp »

simias wrote: post #97
Vinnl wrote: post #64

His feelings about two of the "sides" of this argument are so recognisable. I'm generally in favour of going out of my way e.g. to make minorities feel more welcome to compensate for the natural tendency to make them feel less welcome. However, the nastiness of some of the people in "my camp" pushes me away from it and makes me reluctant to openly support that cause. In effect, they're really counterproductive, and t…

There will always be garbage people in "your camp", whatever that camp might be. Hell, for some people in "your camp" you'll be the nasty one. The big problem with the internet and modern social networks is that they suck at filtering the noise and getting the interesting bits. In the end if we're not careful we only hear those who shout the loudest and most provocative things. A well researched essay on gender studi…

Your 'problem' is their 'opportunity'. On social networks what you call 'noise' they call 'engagement'... it's how they make their money. The more outraged/pissed off you are, the more engaged you are. They probably view the 'interesting bits' more as you would view commercials on TV: a necessary evil. (i.e. with the interesting bits, one gets on, does their business and goes away. With outrage, one tends to stay engaged.)

Re: Linus Torvalds: 'I'll never be cuddly but I can be more polite'

#343

Post by noir_lord »

Vinnl wrote: post #64

His feelings about two of the "sides" of this argument are so recognisable. I'm generally in favour of going out of my way e.g. to make minorities feel more welcome to compensate for the natural tendency to make them feel less welcome. However, the nastiness of some of the people in "my camp" pushes me away from it and makes me reluctant to openly support that cause. In effect, they're really counterproductive, and t…

For me it's sorta the same, I'm broadly in favour of a CoC generally as a codified minimum standard of behaviour but I dislike intensely some of the people who then move in and use the CoC to attack everyone the disagree with (I'm not naming people because well that's not fair) often breaching the spirit of the CoC they pushed for in the first place, that or treat any discussion of whether the Coc is a good idea as a personal attack on whatever community/group they ascribe to.

A stand up comic said something a while back that I liked "Tyranny is the absence of nuance".

Re: Linus Torvalds: 'I'll never be cuddly but I can be more polite'

#344

Post by ethbro »

gowld wrote: post #283
ethbro wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civility is the bedrock on which justice is built. That's why Gandhi, King, and Mandela effected change. And so many passionate others did not.

That's extremely selective memory. Mandela was a member of a terrorist organization. Apartheid didn't end because Mandela sat in prison politely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing King railed against people who spoke like you to quiet the people fighting for justice: https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.... "I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" an…

Mandela didn't control the entire ANC, just as one person doesn't control a movement. We only have his words and decisions.

And before I'd dare to selectively quote the finest and most comprehensive American Civil Rights document from that period (written from memory and without reference material, no less), I would spend more time reading and understanding all of Dr. King's remarks in that letter.

(And its context: local white Christian leadership had published a newspaper piece blaming "outside agitators").

> "In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action."

Re: Linus Torvalds: 'I'll never be cuddly but I can be more polite'

#345

Post by pseudalopex »

nailer wrote: post #70
nalllar wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being political isn't a problem. Free Software is political. mjg59 put this far better than I could: > A reminder that free software is fundamentally about breaking down barriers preventing people from participating in a social endeavour that grants them more control over their computers, and anyone who argues against that process is not helping the cause of free software > Some of those barriers are technical (DRM,…

mjg's quote was concerning ethics and abuse, and does not mention politics. The concern is that the CoC itself may be used to abuse individuals. Asides from the Tso example, there was someone else harassed because, outside of a project, they expressed a sexual preference for male dominant/female submissive roles.

Can you explain what you mean about Ted Ts'o? I know there's a story going around that people are calling him a rape apologist because he didn't endorse the CoC. People have called him a rape apologist for years because of arguments he made about rape.

If your other example is Larry Garfield, he's part of a subculture that's controversial even in BDSM circles, and he insisted on bringing elements of that subculture into technical events. Also, the official position seems to be that he didn't actually violate Drupal's code of conduct, but they removed him anyway.

Re: Linus Torvalds: 'I'll never be cuddly but I can be more polite'

#346

Post by 13years »

mike22223333 wrote: post #317

I'm probably a person with not so great social skills. I'm a person of color. I do not need SJW's to defend me. Please do not destroy our culture. All of a sudden this movement to add "diversity" and other crap is just not right. I agree there is some casual racism/racism for the sake of racism in the community, but I am personally not even bothered and it has never affected me (I ignored them and they stopped and so…

I wonder if the 'No Code Of Conduct' concept would actually be better in many cases. I am curious if this has been tried on any larger communities.

https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC

Re: Linus Torvalds: 'I'll never be cuddly but I can be more polite'

#347

Post by notacoward »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #334
notacoward wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for some people in "your camp" you'll be the nasty one. I'll go one further. "The nasty one" is a role that usually begs to be filled, even in a good cause. Sometimes it's even essential to progress. "Good cop, bad cop" works. I'm more likely to play "bad cop" myself, though at least I'm usually aware of it being a situational role. I've definitely said things that would have violated a CoC if there had been one in…

The problem with your metaphor is that "good cop, bad cop" is something you do to someone you're trying to deceive in order to further your own agenda at their expense. It's a way to behave toward an adversary, not someone who you're trying to work with.

> "good cop, bad cop" is something you do to someone you're trying to deceive

That's funny, because the goal is often to get at the truth. Is that an agenda you find objectionable? Do you see something noble in people who are harmed by the truth becoming known? "Bad cop" is not far from "devil's advocate" and the tension either creates is often useful to all involved. Is role-playing the same as deception?

> It's a way to behave toward an adversary

"Adversary" is very situational, and doesn't necessarily imply ill feeling - certainly not to the game theorists or jurists who often use the term. It's pretty common to have someone you generally want to work with be an adversary in a particular context. It's a role, and civil people get over it. In fact, codes of conduct - formal or otherwise - are often the very thing making that possible. They keep the adversarial role "in scene" and prevent it from turning it into permanent antipathy. Again, consider the "adversarial" nature of our justice system, one of the most formal and rules-bound environments most of us will ever see, whose participants are often on quite cordial terms outside the courtroom.

Re: Linus Torvalds: 'I'll never be cuddly but I can be more polite'

#348

Post by whiddershins »

eropple wrote: post #108
simias wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell Linus's feedback is almost always constructive in that it generally points out precisely why he thinks something should or shouldn't that way. The problem is that he sometimes splices personal attacks and uses an overly aggressive tone which doesn't really help anything. I can somewhat justify using a very corrosive tone if you're not in a place of power and you want to be sure that you're not ig…

You are highlighting the false dichotomy that a lot of folks in this thread--and, if I'm being frank, not for good, decent, or ethical reasons--are piling in on. You can do something that makes people upset without being an asshole. It's really that simple. "No, I won't merge this pull request because of X, Y, and Z." Somebody's probably not going to be happy. But you have not needed to stoop to insulting them. You h…

Do you think just saying “this is broken in this way” has an identical effect to yelling at someone for being thoughtless?

It seems you think one approach is clearly worse.

But as a thought experiment can you imagine how each approach might have real tangible advantages?

Re: Linus Torvalds: 'I'll never be cuddly but I can be more polite'

#349

Post by ryandrake »

I’m all for civility, but we (tech culture, primarily Silicon Valley) are starting to move past civility, towards expecting everyone to self-censor and walk around on eggshells in order to avoid even potentially offending someone. I’ve worked with my share of unpleasant assholes, and am glad that professional, civil conversation is back on the menu, but the pendulum is still swinging. Worried about where it will end up.

Re: Linus Torvalds: 'I'll never be cuddly but I can be more polite'

#350

Post by GW150914 »

08-15 wrote: post #257
GW150914 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would cost you nothing to replace your last line with, “I’m sorry, but that’s not what we’re seeing and we won’t merge it until you fix it. I understand your passion, but I won’t sacrifice the quality of this project for that. Fix the code so that it no longer invokes undefined behavior and we’ll review it, otherwise we have nothing more to talk about.” The end. No need to call it crap, no need to burn a bridge.

It costs time and energy, because there is no end to this kind of debate. Some people are persistent and will blame you for explaining badly when they don't understand. These discussions never end; usually not even after things got labelled as crap. Personally, I just stop responding after the technical arguments have been exchanged. There is no point in repeating what was ignored already, no point in ELI5, no point…

It costs time and energy, because there is no end to this kind of debate.

The end is “nothing more to talk about,” and then you stop replying. As to time and energy, if you’re so depleted than an extra few sentences will materially impact you, then that is a problem. Healthy humans won’t be exhausted by expressing themselves in a half paragraph rather than a muttered “crap”.

Some people are persistent and will blame you for explaining badly when they don't understand. These discussions never end; usually not even after things got labelled as crap.

So don’t call it crap, just clearly state that you’re not interested anymore and hit ignore. The rest is their problem, not yours, and you’ll gain a reputation for being forthright and firm rather than hysterical.

Personally, I just stop responding after the technical arguments have been exchanged. There is no point in repeating what was ignored already, no point in ELI5, no point to using swear words, silence is what works best.

Amen brother.

By the way, if you told me "I understand your passion, but...", I'd be angry beyond belief. That's the way you talk to children, and even my mother is no longer allowed to talk to me like that. I consider that a stronger insult than my code being called crap. Which probably shows that shutting up in time is the best response.

The person in the example was acting like a child, and deserved to be treated (politely) like one. Either way though, my particular wording was just off-the-cuff and only an example.

Post reply on HN