181–190 of 289 posts
Who's the un-person you're not allowed to name? I want to register and post his / her name and get banned myself. Perhaps, we should all do this.
Why do you want to stick your opinion into something that you hadn't previously known about? What are you going to positively contribute to the discussion that will move things forward? How does that help?
Amazon Meta or Google should please create and maintain a corporate fork. The performance fixes could happen faster and would probably pay for themselves. No more problems with issues like this. Would provide some people with good jobs.
He should have stayed on as BDFL. Now in the power vacuum a bunch of “activists” and political enthusiasts will take over and ruin the whole thing for everyone, or at least significantly slow down the progress
I'm glad he's stepped down. His opinion matters to be sure, but python needs to be a community developed language. He's a smart guy, and he matters still to the python community. There was a tremendous amount of frustration around the walrus operator, which led to him stepping down.
All three of those have declined. It's less readable than it used to be, it's definitely more complicated (not just complex, complicated), and the standard library is declining rapidly in relevance as it ages.
And it wasn't just Guido. Tim was a big advocate for all three of those super powers when he was more influential. They banned Tim and they censored Guido, so go figure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They probably mean the poem at the bottom here: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3120/ Under "And now for something completely different"
Ah. That’s really inappropriate for a technical document.
For example, here's GNOME the desktop being concerned about climate change:
https://discourse.gnome.org/t/question-to-candidates-the-boa...
This seems to be a repeating theme lately. NixOS went through something incredibly similar lately.
I miss that information, have you a link to share ?
Another overview (easy to understand, but some non-central information is inaccurate), https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5819317/nixos-commits-a-purg...
Concrete events & evidences, https://github.com/nrdxp/rfc-evidence/blob/master/rfc_eviden...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah. That’s really inappropriate for a technical document.
Unnecessary politics in certain tech spheres is still a norm. For example, here's GNOME the desktop being concerned about climate change: https://discourse.gnome.org/t/question-to-candidates-the-boa...
One post. His posting rights haven't been withdrawn, it's one message in context which was elided out. [edit: I am somewhat surprised people want to down-vote a factual statement, which in part aligns to the OP who changed the title of the post since it was being wrongly inferred his posting rights had gone, not a single post was being hidden. As the saying goes "you do you"]
I also don’t fully understand why some folks are worked up. We all have posts that are downvoted and removed even here on HN. If you don’t like the steering committee or whatever, just elect a new one.
A more drastic analogy, this is like getting kicked out of your house by your kids. Altough I see that this one is flawed and exaggarated
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Unfortunately a few years later I can say the opposite. It's your contention that people getting up in arms about not changing the name of the 'master' branch specifically look good now, with hindsight? Can't say I agree.
That the people implying they were monsters were the actual monsters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just how much information you extract, but also what you do with that information. RCV, in the most common form of IRV, has a problem that I think is relevant. If we accept the truism that the appropriate compromise won't be anyone's first choice, then the very first thing IRV does is throw out any appropriate compromise, leaving it to make a decision between inappropriate options. I think we need to be more…
That truism seems pretty unacceptable to me.
I'm not proposing it as a rule within any system, though, and my analysis generally holds so long as it's true a meaningful chunk of the time - it doesn't even need to be a majority of cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The last thing we need, seen through that lens, is a complex system where people don’t understand the results or how exactly their vote will affect those results. And this is one of the best features of approval voting compared to any form of ranked choice!
"The winner is preferred to each other candidate, by the majority of voters" seems pretty straightforward to me. The problem with Approval is that we're right back at the Faustian bargain of needing to fully support the lesser evil at the expense of your preferred option. And the only thing Range adds is allowing you to moderate the amount of that bargain.
It is, but 1) the public needs to be sufficiently convinced that all of the bookkeeping reliably determines which candidate that applies to in the face of possible error or malfeasance, and 2) sometimes there is no such candidate (cycles are possible) and what happens then can be complicated.
(And sure, ties are possible in ~any system, but if we treat cycles as ties we've made ties much more likely.)