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

How Software Companies Die (1995)

cs.cmu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 176 posts

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#161

Post by adamnemecek »

dasil003 wrote: post #83
adamnemecek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are trying to retrofit current sense of morality onto the sense held by people in the past. What if people during Turing's time actually thought that homosexual behavior was unethical (which I think is not too far from the truth)?

It's not about ethics, it's about beliefs vs qualities. Being gay is a genetic trait, it's not a formed belief system. Whether that was generally understood 70 years ago is neither here nor there. Furthermore, there is the question of liberty. Being gay and performing homosexual acts is a personal choice, it does not hurt anyone else the way bigotry does.

> Whether that was generally understood 70 years ago is neither here nor there.

That's some handwaving.

Again, your argument looks at it with present eyes.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#162

Post by SwellJoe »

barking wrote: post #33
SwellJoe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One shouldn't feel obligated to be tolerant of intolerance expressed by people with power and privilege against those who have less power and privilege (like a wealthy, straight, white male attacking LGBTQ folks). That's a very common tactic of bigots to claim that being told they should stop oppressing people is oppressive toward them. Demanding an end to oppression is not oppressive toward those who currently benef…

The linked page doesn't mention gays once, it's about programming. The post I replied to, seemed to me to suggest that everthing OSC says about anything can be discounted because he is judged to be anti-gay. We're not going to listen to him on anything from now on unless perhaps he recants and does penance for his sins

There are other good reasons not to listen to OSC, like having never run a software company or been a significant participant in the software industry.

But, I think it's OK to point out that the guy is a backward bigot and is driven by his religion more than good sense; it speaks to his character and to his approach to the world. If his views on life, society, law, and everything else, are shaped by a fairy tale (and they are), I'd like to know it.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#163

Post by PhasmaFelis »

aaronem wrote: post #135
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says that I believe a man who holds violent* and irrational hatred in his heart is unlikely to be a rational thinker, and his words on any subject should be give careful consideration. I stand by that, thank you very much. *Yes, violent. Card has literally advocated armed revolution against any federal government that legalizes gay marriage.

Having once had my arm broken by words on the subject of armed revolution, I unreservedly endorse your use of the adjective 'violent' in this case.

"Advocating violence" = "violent beliefs" has been a feature of the English language for ages, and I was using it correctly. I'm sorry if you don't like the way the language works, but it's not my fault.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#164

Post by dasil003 »

adamnemecek wrote: post #161
dasil003 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about ethics, it's about beliefs vs qualities. Being gay is a genetic trait, it's not a formed belief system. Whether that was generally understood 70 years ago is neither here nor there. Furthermore, there is the question of liberty. Being gay and performing homosexual acts is a personal choice, it does not hurt anyone else the way bigotry does.

> Whether that was generally understood 70 years ago is neither here nor there. That's some handwaving. Again, your argument looks at it with present eyes.

So does yours. It's impossible for us to have any non-modern perspective. It's a moot point to argue. My point is that there is a difference between a belief and biological trait. That distinction is timeless regardless of what contemporary morality says about various beliefs and actions.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#165

Post by adamnemecek »

dasil003 wrote: post #164
adamnemecek wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whether that was generally understood 70 years ago is neither here nor there. That's some handwaving. Again, your argument looks at it with present eyes.

So does yours. It's impossible for us to have any non-modern perspective. It's a moot point to argue. My point is that there is a difference between a belief and biological trait. That distinction is timeless regardless of what contemporary morality says about various beliefs and actions.

> So does yours.

How so?

> It's impossible for us to have any non-modern perspective.

Sure, but we can try.

> My point is that there is a difference between a belief and biological trait.

I mean, I get your point and I agree with it but again, that does not really tell us anything about ethics in the past.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#166

Post by ktd »

grammaton wrote: post #147
michaelochurch wrote: post #100

I like some of what this essay has to say, but generally disagree with this: When you emerge into daylight, you might well discover that you're a hundred pounds overweight, your underwear is older than the average first grader, and judging from the number of pizza boxes lying around, it must be spring already. That's depressing, and unhealthy. Programming well is a marathon, not a sprint. Neglecting your health burns…

"Also, the ability to get to 100 pounds overweight without only mild loss of professional and social status (instead of the severe loss women face) is a male privilege of sorts." Women don't face a severe loss of professional status if they put on weight, unless their employer enjoys being cleaned out in court. And as for a loss of social status - try being an obese man for a while and see how that works out for you.…

>Women don't face a severe loss of professional status if they put on weight, unless their employer enjoys being cleaned out in court.

You know, there are a lot of things that happen in the world despite not being legal.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#167

Post by ghshephard »

127 wrote: post #70
ghshephard wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference here, is that it's not the 1800s, and OSC continues to not just hold, but evangelize his hateful positions. See: http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html for one of the reasons people find him repellent. Choice quote (after he had a chance to reflect on the response to his essay): "...it has become clearer and clearer to me, since writing this essay, that gay activism as a movement is no long…

This is not a hateful position. It is a political position and a stance of how society should operate. I see no gay hatred there. Simply the strong need for family and society building. Just because you can't understand his reasons and emotionally react to some of his opinions does not a bigot make.

Replace, "Gay people should not be allowed to marry" with "Black people should not be allowed to marry white people" or "Jews should not be allowed to work as professionals", or "Women should stay at home and take care of the children"

When you start identifying a group, and placing restrictions on rights which you enjoy, you are taking a hateful position.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#168

Post by chris_wot »

xmonkee wrote: post #121
ronaldx wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would make an ad hominem attack, yes. I don't believe ad hominem is fallacious in this sense. Orson Scott Card has expressed such a lack of humanity elswhere that I do not understand why I would spend my time deciding whether his other arguments have any merit. He has disqualified himself from my consideration.

I don't think that qualifies for an ad hominem at all. It's only ad hominem if the factor you're dismissing the author due to happens to be irrelevant to his current argument. That's not the case, I agree. Having said that, I just want to make it clear that I don't know enough about him to agree with your position on him. I know he's anti-gay, and I've read the Ender books. That's about it.

The author has nothing to do with the substance of the article. If you cannot see that, I'm truly sorry for you.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#169

Post by chris_wot »

ColinWright wrote: post #124
keithpeter wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Script assisted manual commands are something I use a lot as well, I can hack up scripts and cope with minor changes in data format &c. I'm interested in the reaction to automated posting but the comparative acceptance of 'by hand' posting. Is that simply frequency? Are you selecting which historic threads to run searches against?

I think in part many people were just upset at having a 'bot posting. Thin end of the wedge, and all that. Others didn't like the tone of the message, seeing it as a rebuke. This is why when I do it "by hand" I make sure I hunt out previous discussions, and if there are none, make a note of that. I can script it all, but with the general hostility I've decided that I'll run the searches for myself because there are o…

I, for one, would be very sad if you stopped posting to HN.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#170

Post by gscott »

grammaton wrote: post #146
xmonkee wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's understandable, but doesn't make it right. I personally dislike his opinions enough not to pay a dollar to watch his movies or read his books. I might even be loathe to give him enough respect to read this article, but that's a prejudice and it's not right.

This presumes that every belief and idea occupies an equal plane of legitimacy, and that everything is basically a matter of opinion. It's not. His views are not acceptable. He's free to voice them all he likes, of course, but choosing to ignore him completely on the basis of some of his unacceptable views is not, in any way, "prejudice." Do keep in mind, please, that on the basis of just one thing - someone's sexual…

I believe what you want to say is that you want to declare war on him for his beliefs. Go after his writing works, even decades in the past, go after him for his current works, and seek to destroy him because he has a difference of opinion with him.
Post reply on HN