101–110 of 122 posts
This slashdot article has a big gap in it 1. Person publishes a thing with a title including the word “Question” 2. People say this title has some resonance to do with the Nazi genocide and ask him to change it 3. He refuses to change it 5. He gets expelled from the committee You see the missing piece? Unlike the title, the body text doesn’t say he was expelled for the title or even for refusing to change it. It says…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if you are being serious or not. If the former, there are two problems with the "employer": (1) finding a problem where there is none, (2) firing a person for sticking to the common sense rather that giving in to meaningless accusations.
It seems like you are assuming quite a bit about 2. I think what GP was getting at is that is something along the lines of if you were accused of misconduct, and in being called into your manager's office for them to ask you about it you behaved unprofessionally enough they no longer thought you were a good fit for the company regardless of whether the accusation was true , they are entirely justified in wanting to e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> jump into wild nonsense conspiracy theory or extreme bigotry. Did they? The commenter was referring to "Simple Sabotage Field Manual", by the CIA. It's a very commonly cited list of actions to take, or that someone would take, to impede the effectiveness of an organization. The commenter was not saying "CIA did it, and birds aren't real".
Yeah appealing to that book is literally conspiracy nonsense when you're talking about a group of engineers trying to do good engineering. That appeal fundamentally means that there are people trying to actively sabotage a thing, that by itself is a conspiracy theory particularly when you consider that much of the standards committee has been doing standardization work for ages, and all of them are experienced engine…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should know better than to take the word of an anonymous comment and call it fact. Andrew T. (the guy in question) gave this statement on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1gynl1v/c_stan... The rumors surrounding him appear to have originated from https://izzys.casa/2024/11/on-safe-cxx/ What we know is that he was asked to change the title after people complained, and he pushed back on that, k…
Why would he not post about his own banishment over such BS? When people feign offense to get their colleagues banned over such innocent words as "question" in the title of a paper, why should anyone bend over and accept such authoritarian influence? Someone has to push back on the tyranny of the crybully. >It honestly makes me sad to watch a guy who went to Stanford and worked at Apple and Google get involved with d…
> So, these people are indoctrinated to cow in the face of censorship based on insanity. Got it.
Well, apparently they are -- at least according to the GP -- supposed to be indoctrinated to cow in the face of censorship based on insanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would he not post about his own banishment over such BS? When people feign offense to get their colleagues banned over such innocent words as "question" in the title of a paper, why should anyone bend over and accept such authoritarian influence? Someone has to push back on the tyranny of the crybully. >It honestly makes me sad to watch a guy who went to Stanford and worked at Apple and Google get involved with d…
Most people haven't had any genuine exposure to the cultures that exist on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. You would have to be familiar with them to understand what emotions that dredges up, otherwise you're going to be terribly confused by this. However understanding is not a requisite for diplomatic communication with other cultures. An international standards committee that wants to represent the inte…
Out towards the ends of the political spectrum, the prevailing "culture" uses such weird terminology that normal people can't let that affect their -- our (hopefully ) -- use of language. If we did, we couldn't say anything, because in some weird sect's nutjob language pretty much any word can mean something horrible. Which this kerfluffle illustrates perfectly. Giving in on this now sets a precedent that in the end will lead to language being wholly co-opted by rabid extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
> An international standards committee that wants to represent the interests of all groups needs to take this kind of thing seriously.
No. Or well, yes: It needs to seriously fight against bullshit like this, lest it soon will have to censor out every second word in the very standards it promulgates.
The author of the paper is not competent in the subject matter. A compiler can make assumptions that behavior is well defined, and it can also identify situations where it is confirmed undefined. All of that reasoning happens before runtime. For instance, and unreachable assertion works by invoking undefined behavior. What identified by the function-call-like syntax unreachable(). If we have: S; unreachable(); then,…
Yeah, sure, quite possible (I have no idea). But then he needs to be kicked out explicitly for not being competent in the subject matter. Because kicking him out (at least ostensibly) for a ridiculous made-up language issue sets the precedent that people can -- should? -- be kicked out for ridiculous made-up language issues.
I mmean... Isn't that the point of this whole thing? Which makes your technical qu-- well, sure, perhaps your quite valid technical issues, but in the context of him being kicked out ostensibly for some totally different and definitely invalid "reason", a quibble -- isn't your point then rather irrelevant to the actual point of the discussion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Interesting that you did not choose to voice your opinions using your main accounts on that community then. I'd love to, but reddit and cpp keep banning/suspending accounts - so I can't! Funny how that works isn't it? > Nah, that was just the comment I used to get to your profile. I banned you for insulting someone. That is not true. Here is the message: > Hello, You have been permanently banned from participating…
> That is not true. I banned you, so I like to think I'm an authority on why you were banned. Here's a step by step timeline of what happened. 1. This comment of yours received a high number of reports and was automatically filtered: https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1gyiwwc/comment/lyp3jl... 2. I agreed with the reports and removed your comments. 3. I read the rest of the comments in your thread, and noticed you…
Seems logical... (But when you think about it, it presupposes that you know and admit to yourself your actual motivations.)
FWIW, as a rather occasional redditor and having read through several pages linked from here (including much of that ultra-weird "HOOBY... dogwhistle!" blog post where the whole thing may have originated), to me you're coming off as more of a censorious ban-happy "PC SJW woke" gatekeeper than bun_terminator as a ban-worthy AH. (FWIW, every cent you paid for it.)
This slashdot article has a big gap in it 1. Person publishes a thing with a title including the word “Question” 2. People say this title has some resonance to do with the Nazi genocide and ask him to change it 3. He refuses to change it 5. He gets expelled from the committee You see the missing piece? Unlike the title, the body text doesn’t say he was expelled for the title or even for refusing to change it. It says…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> jump into wild nonsense conspiracy theory or extreme bigotry. Did they? The commenter was referring to "Simple Sabotage Field Manual", by the CIA. It's a very commonly cited list of actions to take, or that someone would take, to impede the effectiveness of an organization. The commenter was not saying "CIA did it, and birds aren't real".
Yeah appealing to that book is literally conspiracy nonsense when you're talking about a group of engineers trying to do good engineering. That appeal fundamentally means that there are people trying to actively sabotage a thing, that by itself is a conspiracy theory particularly when you consider that much of the standards committee has been doing standardization work for ages, and all of them are experienced engine…
How is yelling "HOOBY, antisemitism!" about a perfectly innocuous title "trying to do good engineering"?
> That appeal fundamentally means that there are people trying to actively sabotage a thing
Well, if they aren't trying to, they're doing a damn fine unintentional job of it.