471–480 of 514 posts
I think with the amount of coverage this story has gotten, everyone wanted something big to happen. Instead, we just get something mundane in some carefully crafted words that seem designed to give no information whatsoever, while still ensuring nobody can be sued any further. I kind of get the feeling that they are all trying to say "Nothing to see here....move along....cows turn themselves inside out all the time".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>if Julie wants to share this story so publicly then everyone should at least have all of the story the whole thing is crass and distasteful to my british sensibilities, but if this the future of how conflict in internet corporations is represented, then we shouldn't be surprised to see allegations from all sides. The key skills that we as audience have to develop is critical thinking, impartiality and a good sense o…
we shouldn't be surprised to see allegations from all sides. The line is drawn at "anonymous internet sources". At least in the sense of euclidean geometry, that is not a "side" of the argument as much as it is a literary device to create an infinite attack surface.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I meant that this immature (and shitty) behavior was based in that domain of "romance" (the existence or lack thereof, in this case) and not, from the face of Horvath's description, automatically based on gender-discrimination. Don't make up soft weasel words to describe it. It's sexual harassment plain and simple. Also, this bit about classifying it as gender-discrimination seems like pointless hair-splitting. Hor…
Sorry, reverting someone's commits out of spite because they rejected you is not sexual harassment "plain and simple." Words have meanings. Furthermore it is not "pointless hair-splitting" to say it is not gender discrimination. You clearly have no understanding of what these terms mean and why it's important to not let this type of drama bleed into the wider discussion about systemic gender discrimination in tech. h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt there will ever be any clear explanation on what happened. Two sides of the story basically tell two different stories. As someone mentioned in the post, Julie posted some tweets in response to Github's announcement today. ( https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore ) 1. Bullying someone into quitting: Illegal. 2. Asking an employee to relay private conversations between her and her partner: Illegal. 3. Justifying the ha…
You can never know which side of the story is true, but it's worth noting that one side of the story looks crazy and the other does not. It's hard to quantify the smell of crazy, but we can start with an overwhelming interest in insulting the other party, and the claims stretch credibility. For example, consider the claim that a man "bullied [her] out of our code base because I wouldn't fuck him". This is a very stro…
Her responses also failed to address the fact that one of the co-founders resigned.
So at the end of the day we have someone spewing vitriol; and someone stepping down from a prestigious position as a show of good faith. That's the only evidence I have and it doesn't reflect well on Julie at all; I can only imagine what it's like to work with a person who spits out expletives at that cadence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new Hacker News moderation team is more politically correct than it used to be. You can bet stories questioning tech-feminist narratives will be dead-ed as "non-constructive"
Pretty sure we haven't touched any of the several posts of that article. Users flagged them. Edit: I checked. It was posted three times. First was deleted by the poster. Second was flag-killed by users. Third is still up but heavily flagged. No moderator touched any of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the sequence of events was there. As best I've been able to work out, whatever juvenile oaf created the "dongml" repo added Shaw to it in order to harass him somehow, and Shaw responded by writing a script to constantly commit changes to the repo which essentially rendered it empty, which seems reasonable both as retaliation in that specific case, and for general reasons of…
You're close. Someone added Zed to the dongml repo just to be annoying, and Zed removed himself. But the inviter just added him again, and Zed complained that there isn't any sort of confirmation to indicate, "yes, I'd like to be part of this project," so people can add you against your will, which happened repeatedly to Zed with dongml. Eventually, Zed retaliated with his commit bot, and github apparently looked at…
The internet has a way of unshutting the whole thing up: https://web.archive.org/web/20130117043748/http://sheddingbi...
and the followup https://web.archive.org/web/20120619005253/http://sheddingbi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, are they saying that Horvath was lying? Neither party has to be lying. She might honestly believe she was treated in a specific way because of her sex, while others may have treated her in a specific way because of, for instance, her competence. Both may be 100% honest in their assessment of the relationship, yet be completely at odds. The workplace absolutely sounded unprofessional, which often means the entire…
> unprofessional workplaces are generally celebrated in the tech community, often for good reason Why for good reason? Do you have any specific examples in mind?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for contribution. I'm trying to figure out which of the common relevance fallacies it falls under if anyone can help? Here are the possible options as I see it. * reductio ad absurdam * red herring * strawman * non sequiter
Reductio ad absurdum is actually a completely legitimate method of argument. There is nothing fallacious about it whatsoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Tom didn't demand they go balls-to-the-wall fighting what may be an inevitably losing battle to disprove something that isn't disprovable? I don't know what happened, but this outcome might be very much in Tom's well-considered best interests. You are making a no-win situation. EDIT : Heck, I don't even know if you are mad at GitHub for insufficiently defending Tom or insufficiently crucifying him
gjvc is using their small slice of economic leverage to weigh in; the motivations are no one else's business unless gjvc volunteers this. Given the baiting questions you pose, what incentive does gjvc have to address your curiosity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for contribution. I'm trying to figure out which of the common relevance fallacies it falls under if anyone can help? Here are the possible options as I see it. * reductio ad absurdam * red herring * strawman * non sequiter
Reductio ad absurdum is actually a completely legitimate method of argument. There is nothing fallacious about it whatsoever.
Not disagreeing with you, just raising a point.