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

I'm sorry

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 277 posts

Re: I'm sorry

#31

Post by Zababa »

bovermyer wrote: post #21
Zababa wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I wanted to interpret this in a paranoiac way, I would say that's because the author of the PR isn't apologetic at all, and in fact is quite fine with forcing a PR through the maintainers without their consent.

Remember the old adage - never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Hanlon's Razor, I believe it was. And here, by "stupidity," I just mean the author didn't think about that. Too often people are willing to attribute sinister meaning to what, in reality, was just a mistake.

Assuming good intentions is a good way to get abused by people exploiting the fact that you assume good intentions. The person in question did a PR, someone informed her that she should follow the rules, she didn't, merged her PR, more people complained. Right now the PR is still merged. She wrote that whole text, and the PR is still merged.

Since I can't read people's mind, a good trick that I learned is to derive intent from actions. Removing a merged PR is easy, especially when you can force merge one in the first place. Yet she didn't do it, but wrote a lot of text that is apparently an apology. If it's an apology, why is there no show of regret by retracting her PR? Maybe because it's not actually an apology.

Edit: the PR was removed by the current maintainer.

Re: I'm sorry

#32

Post by Arnavion »

markphip wrote: post #27
Zababa wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the apology is here because the author of the PR doesn't want to revert it. As you can see, it's still merged: https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/blob/b930a34badfb2164f38... Edit: as lots of people said, I was on an older version of the file. I'm not sure how I did this, but I should have double-checked, especially since there was some base64 stuff in the URL.

I did not see any indication that she was asked to revert the PR. It seemed like it was more just about that she felt it was OK to bypass the policy.

And, regardless of whether this particular PR Is reverted or not, whether there's anything to prevent her or any other board member from doing this again.

Re: I'm sorry

#33

Post by Arnavion »

nickff wrote: post #29
rvz wrote: post #26

Is there any point in saying sorry anymore? One commenter in the thread already described it as a non-apology. For them, there is no '𝘴ₒᵣᵣy' or '...please, I can explain...' or 'it's not what you think it is' . Once it has already been admitted, the road already looks like it is heading to no redemption.

The top comment on the apology is also an accusation of insufficient prostration. I agree that internet culture seems antithetical to forgiveness, and have no idea what can be done about it.

What the heck are you two talking about? You're making it out as if the two top-level comments are just that OP didn't apologize enough. In reality they're responding specifically to the OP's individual claims and pointing out they're not accurate.

You think that "Our projects were moved to GitHub Enterprise to consolidate billing but we never had a bill in the first place." and "You're telling us we don't have copyright over our projects but the contract we signed doesn't say that." is "an accusation of insufficient prostration" ?

Re: I'm sorry

#34

Post by gus_massa »

Zababa wrote: post #16
pwdisswordfish0 wrote: post #10

holy fuck, does every little mistake need a solemn 4000 word apology these days? that’s already not a world i want to live in, but then even the apology gets shit on and invalidated. people need to take everything much less seriously, especially shit that happens on the internet. this whole thing should have been able to be a new PR with “sorry about the merge before, i screwed up and it won’t happen again” at the en…

I think the apology is here because the author of the PR doesn't want to revert it. As you can see, it's still merged: https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/blob/b930a34badfb2164f38... Edit: as lots of people said, I was on an older version of the file. I'm not sure how I did this, but I should have double-checked, especially since there was some base64 stuff in the URL.

It was reverted in https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/commit/a502b596d4c4a45a7...

Re: I'm sorry

#35

Post by int_19h »

Zababa wrote: post #16
pwdisswordfish0 wrote: post #10

holy fuck, does every little mistake need a solemn 4000 word apology these days? that’s already not a world i want to live in, but then even the apology gets shit on and invalidated. people need to take everything much less seriously, especially shit that happens on the internet. this whole thing should have been able to be a new PR with “sorry about the merge before, i screwed up and it won’t happen again” at the en…

I think the apology is here because the author of the PR doesn't want to revert it. As you can see, it's still merged: https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/blob/b930a34badfb2164f38... Edit: as lots of people said, I was on an older version of the file. I'm not sure how I did this, but I should have double-checked, especially since there was some base64 stuff in the URL.

You're looking at the older version of the file. Here's the complete history:

https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/commits/main/src/Directo...

So it was merged, then reverted almost immediately, and then reimplemented by the project maintainers in the manner they preferred (without a new dependency).

Re: I'm sorry

#36

Post by Sebb767 »

beachy wrote: post #23
pwdisswordfish0 wrote: post #10

holy fuck, does every little mistake need a solemn 4000 word apology these days? that’s already not a world i want to live in, but then even the apology gets shit on and invalidated. people need to take everything much less seriously, especially shit that happens on the internet. this whole thing should have been able to be a new PR with “sorry about the merge before, i screwed up and it won’t happen again” at the en…

The comments beneath the apology make the point (I couldn't quite follow it all) that this wasn't really an apology at all. The lengthy word count might tend to confirm that,as you say a genuine apology should be terse and direct.

> The lengthy word count might tend to confirm that,as you say a genuine apology should be terse and direct.

I've seen enough short apologies posted here and the comments below usually pointed out the lack of effort, the lack of commitment to do better, the lack of pointing out errors and the likes. Any form of apology will get some flak just based on whatever form it took, so I don't think one can judge just based on word count.

Re: I'm sorry

#37

Post by nimvlaj30 »

bovermyer wrote: post #21
Zababa wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I wanted to interpret this in a paranoiac way, I would say that's because the author of the PR isn't apologetic at all, and in fact is quite fine with forcing a PR through the maintainers without their consent.

Remember the old adage - never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Hanlon's Razor, I believe it was. And here, by "stupidity," I just mean the author didn't think about that. Too often people are willing to attribute sinister meaning to what, in reality, was just a mistake.

Hanlon's Razor is just a heuristic. What is the reasoning for following it? Or do we just blindly follow an age-old adage because it sounds philosophical?

Re: I'm sorry

#39

Post by Aaronontheweb »

Zababa wrote: post #16
pwdisswordfish0 wrote: post #10

holy fuck, does every little mistake need a solemn 4000 word apology these days? that’s already not a world i want to live in, but then even the apology gets shit on and invalidated. people need to take everything much less seriously, especially shit that happens on the internet. this whole thing should have been able to be a new PR with “sorry about the merge before, i screwed up and it won’t happen again” at the en…

I think the apology is here because the author of the PR doesn't want to revert it. As you can see, it's still merged: https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/blob/b930a34badfb2164f38... Edit: as lots of people said, I was on an older version of the file. I'm not sure how I did this, but I should have double-checked, especially since there was some base64 stuff in the URL.

That's a small part of a much larger trust issue with the foundation: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/38

Re: I'm sorry

#40

Post by alpaca128 »

nickff wrote: post #29
rvz wrote: post #26

Is there any point in saying sorry anymore? One commenter in the thread already described it as a non-apology. For them, there is no '𝘴ₒᵣᵣy' or '...please, I can explain...' or 'it's not what you think it is' . Once it has already been admitted, the road already looks like it is heading to no redemption.

The top comment on the apology is also an accusation of insufficient prostration. I agree that internet culture seems antithetical to forgiveness, and have no idea what can be done about it.

You might want to consider that the forced pull request has still not been reverted by this person. So an apology but no intention to undo a mistake? Does not sound very genuine in any way.

Also, an apology about a PR isn't this long. This is a wall of text with a few meek words inbetween.

Post reply on HN