Live data from Hacker News

I Violated a Code of Conduct

fast.ai

91–100 of 971 posts

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#91

I do think it’s a bit odd that a notebook can hold intermediate state. Or to put it another way: why isn’t “restart and clear output” the default and in fact only thing you can do? When would you want your notebook to ever look different to how it would look if you did a clean build? ...which leads to the observation that Jupyter combines text editor design, build system architecture, and programming language choice…

> why isn’t “restart and > clear output” the default

Maybe the earlier cells are pulling down large files over the internet or, more commonly, doing intensive computations such as model training.

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#94
post #46

Okay, forget the CoC for a second, can we evaluate this talk with just regular human empathy? Because I think he’s being somewhat of a dick. Like it’s a little rude and not in the best taste. Like it was totally possible to give this talk in a positive manner talking about all the reasons you think notebooks are good and demonstrating the use-cases. * You don’t have to call out or reference the original speaker at al…

You need to develop a little sense of humor.

The author was responding to a talk made by a friend and he let him know ahead of time he would be using some of his slides and the friend was ok with that.

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#95
It was clearly a mistake for him to even play along, especially if he was emotionally exhausted already.

The best you can do when people are being stupid like this is ignore them. They hold no power over you unless you let them.

This whole CoC thing is sadly fraught with virtue signaling psycho-sadists who enjoy playing tribunal.

The people who actually cared about fostering inclusive human communities got bullied out of positions of power long ago, so that aforementioned people could run their own little Stasi.

I'm not sure whether he had to play along with their absurdist play, but next time maybe he will be able to laugh, hang up, and block future calls from their numbers.

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#96
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Each conference has their own goals, but I'd think that a general thread that underlies all of them is the exchange of ideas. If you can't criticize ideas ("Joe Schmoe is wrong about X"), then I'd say you're not doing a great job of exchanging ideas. I think preventing attendees from criticizing people ("Joe Schmoe is dumb") is perfectly fine, but that's clearly not what happened here.

"If you can't criticize ideas ("Joe Schmoe is wrong about X"), then I'd say you're not doing a great job of exchanging ideas." But, the example you give is one that criticizes Joe Schmoe, not X. How about just "X is wrong", and leave Joe out of it so that the discourse is about the rightness or wrongness of X.

If your talk is in response to another talk by someone else, and you're taking slides and content from their talk and reacting to them, it's important that your audience know what the initial talk was. They have to have the context of the debate, including who is on each side, to fully investigate both sides and reach their own conclusions.

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#97

Using CoC's to backstab people is not going to end well. Using CoC's to institute a heirarchy of 'who can criticize who' is going to be rebelled against. Some people are power hungry and use words to get power. They are exposing themselves in the silliest ways. Pure vanity.

This new CoC trend is similar to some HOA (homeowners associations) horror stories where the people in charge of the HOA do so for the power trip as opposed to actually providing value.

Over the years, HN's userbase has made it clear most are unfamiliar with Wikipedia beyond surface level details. Folks on this site would probably be surprised how often this happens in the sausage factory there, too.

The big theme in all the most exasperating cases, whether to do with HOAs, CoC enforcement, or even the police seems to involve:

1. wide difference between rules as written and agreed to versus how they are applied

2. unchecked power for enforcers, who can flout punishment/scrutiny, as above, for reasons below

3. insufficient interest from parties not directly impacted

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#98
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, exactly, do your personal feelings and values have to do with the question of whether Jeremy was "a dick" to Joel? Isn't that between Jeremy and Joel? Joel didn't have a problem with Jeremy's talk. Why do you think you know better than Joel whether it was appropriate to criticize Joel in the way that Jeremy did? Your belief that, whatever Joel may have thought, your perspective is the one of "regular human empa…

I disagree in principle. The "victim" doesn't have to be offended for the behaviour to potentially be inappropriate. Behaviour has second order effects beyond the direct "victim" (e.g. people watch and think its ok, so more people do it, and it becomes "normal"). Its also entirely possible for the victim to be hurt, without him admitting it for a variety of reasons (E.g. social pressure, not wanting to be seen as wea…

That's fair. I would hope we can recognize that some things just can't be done in public, while other "offenses" are more subjective and their validity can depend on the relationship of the individuals involved as well as how the supposed target/victim took it. For example, whether it's OK to hug someone in public depends on things like whether it was your life partner or a stranger, and whether the recipient was OK with it.

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#99
post #82
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Joe Schmoe is a very public proponent of X, then everyone will make that connection themselves. Also, if Joe Schmoe and Alice Shclalice have different, but aligned, support of X, it can be useful to your audience to identify different parts of your criticism as "this is how I disagree with Joe" and "this is how I disagree with Alice".

Which still uses language that criticizes the people: "how I disagree with $PERSON". To keep a discourse civil, don't allow it to become personal.

In my view, the discourse from the conference was already civil. Can you explain your point of view a bit more?

Re: I Violated a Code of Conduct

#100
post #6

We're literally tearing ourselves apart, and I don't want to hold opinions about human beings anymore. Anyone can be an enemy or dislike you. Social media has rotted us from within and from all sides. Left, right, it doesn't matter. Everyone is so hostile and eager to end other people. This is madness. Yes, I did read the article. We're cancelling people over criticism . Somebody needs to hide Linus. I don't like cri…

This isn't anything new, people don't seem to make the connection very often, but this kind of behavior is ancient and just takes different forms from time to time.

The disease is the moral authority police & moral superiority complex.

Humans have this compulsion to be "right", to punish people for not being righteous enough, and generally to cultivate a feeling of their own moral superiority.

This is accomplished with rules, usually somewhat vague and needing the ability to be misinterpreted, overinterpred, or just somewhat related to "punishments". If your policy is "don't be a jerk" it's quite hard to misinterpret that into zealotry, but a complex code of conduct? That's the meat and potatoes of this human failing.

People rejected organized religions because they were full of this kind of person, pepperpots determined on punishing each other and everyone else. The failing logic is that this sort of behavior was caused by organized religion.

The self-righteous and overzealous young people (and not so young too) just changed topics, they aren't thumping their bibles of soap boxes about not loving Jesus the right way or following god's will (some still are, just fewer) the pepperpots of today are getting up on their social media soapboxes and doing their morality masturbation about their brand of justice.

The insidious thing, or why they are so widespread and successful is that their message and their sets of rules, on a quick glance, seems reasonable and rather supportable by most folks. The people disagreeing with this new justice are usually the ones yelling nonsense and that opposition draws battle lines where a lot of people pull themselves into the "justice" side to disassociate themselves from the vocal opposition because they can't quite figure out what is wrong with the justice crusaders.

It is very difficult to pinpoint exactly what is wrong with this new generation of moralists, so most people stay pretty silent about it.

It's not new, just the same old monster in a different costume.

Post reply on HN