Matz dreamed Ruby up during Dreamforce "Cloud Computing" conference in 1993??? In 1993?
No, he told the story of coming up with Ruby in 1993 during a Dreamforce conference presumably in 2011/2.
Where’s _why?
31–40 of 191 posts
Re: Where’s _why?
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi there, raganwald, Annie here. I think this is a completely valid criticism, and it's one I largely expected. But for what it is worth, here are my thoughts. As a journalist, I think it would have been irresponsible not to inform _why of the article and not to try to interview him. (As a general point, you don't write articles about public figures, and he was absolutely a public figure, without giving them the chan…
As a journalist, I think it would have been irresponsible not to inform _why of the article and not to try to interview him. Your repeated emails and messages left for him obviously informed him. We’ll have to agree to disagree about what constitutes responsible journalism with respect to “trying to interview him.” Once he’s aware that you want to interview him and chooses not to respond, I’d say you tried. Your acti…
>"I think reporting about _why is fair game, _why was a public figure. I think hunting down the man who created _why is intrusive and is at the level of a paparazzo, invading the privacy of a person who from the outset was clear about separating the two."
Sorry, but I find that rediculous. If Brian Warner kills someone, or James Osterburg overdoses that is not appropriate for public news because they did it under their private personas? Or can Brittney Spears claim that she has two different personas that both just happen to be named "Brittney Spears"?
Frankly, as I see it, once you develop a reputation based on name in a wider community you are now a public figure regardless under which persona you'd like to hide.
Re: Where’s _why?
#33I liked the article. I'm happy that _why didn't commit _real_ suicide. I will now forget the name of the person that the journalist tracked down, and if I ever meet the guy in person, I'll try not to know it.
I agree. Good thing he's okay.
Re: Where’s _why?
#34This article reminded me of this J.J. Abrams' talk at TED - http://www.ted.com/talks/j_j_abrams_mystery_box.html
Re: Where’s _why?
#35Let’s see now. The article spends pages talking about _why and the author’s relationship with _why’s work. Great. It spends a page talking about _why’s desire for anonymity and reclusive nature. Good. It talks about _why’s “infosuicide” and notes that it happened shortly after he was “outed.” Fine. And then we get paragraphs detailing how this journalist stalked him trying to get him to comment about the article. Sen…
Hi there, raganwald, Annie here. I think this is a completely valid criticism, and it's one I largely expected. But for what it is worth, here are my thoughts. As a journalist, I think it would have been irresponsible not to inform _why of the article and not to try to interview him. (As a general point, you don't write articles about public figures, and he was absolutely a public figure, without giving them the chan…
Thank you for responding. Now that I reflect on it, I guess it’s a little like sales. There are some salespeople whose persistence crosses deep into “intrusive” territory, and others who are polite to the point of deference, and every variation in between.
Unless you’re at one end or the other, there will always be many people who agree with your choice and some number of people who disagree with your choice. If we look, we can probably find people who wish you would have done an ‘ambush interview' with a video camera.
This time, I happen to be one of the people who didn’t agree. The next time I read an article of yours, I might be one of the ones who agrees or even wishes you were more forceful.
But I did like the article and thank you for writing it. Also, thanks again for your polite reply.
Re: Where’s _why?
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi there, raganwald, Annie here. I think this is a completely valid criticism, and it's one I largely expected. But for what it is worth, here are my thoughts. As a journalist, I think it would have been irresponsible not to inform _why of the article and not to try to interview him. (As a general point, you don't write articles about public figures, and he was absolutely a public figure, without giving them the chan…
As a journalist, I think it would have been irresponsible not to inform _why of the article and not to try to interview him. Your repeated emails and messages left for him obviously informed him. We’ll have to agree to disagree about what constitutes responsible journalism with respect to “trying to interview him.” Once he’s aware that you want to interview him and chooses not to respond, I’d say you tried. Your acti…
>Your repeated emails and messages left for him obviously informed him. We’ll have to agree to disagree about what constitutes responsible journalism with respect to “trying to interview him.”
Journalists are used to having to do real legwork for fact checking and interviewing. Hell, I'm willing to bet that on a daily basis more hoops have to be jumped through to finally contact someone who is ready and willing to be interviewed.
As far as "obviously informed him", obvious to whom? Someone who doesn't know if their messages have gotten through to the guy or are waiting in an inbox somewhere only to be read after the writer's deadline? You know what would have made it obvious? Relaying back a simple "no comment" message to acknowledge that contact had been made. Otherwise the reporter doesn't really know.
Re: Where’s _why?
#37I find it highly likely that _why is still among us.
Re: Where’s _why?
#38Does anyone else find the deletion of the infosuicide Wikipedia entry linked to in the article as deliciously ironic as I do? Which is a bit sad, because I'd never heard the term before, even though I have been online long enough to participate in my own infosuicide from time to time.
Re: Where’s _why?
#39There's a tremendous amount of pressure to becoming well-known. Musicians self destruct under it. Movie stars' private lives blow up. I can totally understand how a super talented but sensitive dude might want to maintain a pseudonym to deflect this pressure.
While I still wish he were around (in a public sense), because he was a big part of why I jumped into the Ruby community, I don't agree with hunting him down. Ultimately he's a typical human being with some big talents and shortcomings.
_why, if you're out there, thanks. Wish I could buy you a beer.
Re: Where’s _why?
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a journalist, I think it would have been irresponsible not to inform _why of the article and not to try to interview him. Your repeated emails and messages left for him obviously informed him. We’ll have to agree to disagree about what constitutes responsible journalism with respect to “trying to interview him.” Once he’s aware that you want to interview him and chooses not to respond, I’d say you tried. Your acti…
>"I think reporting about _why is fair game, _why was a public figure. I think hunting down the man who created _why is intrusive and is at the level of a paparazzo, invading the privacy of a person who from the outset was clear about separating the two." Sorry, but I find that rediculous. If Brian Warner kills someone, or James Osterburg overdoses that is not appropriate for public news because they did it under the…
It's a rather bizarre argument... That would exclude about half of the celebrities that we know... "Prince", Lady Gaga, et al...