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

Gem.coop

gem.coop

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 331 posts

Re: Gem.coop

#321

Post by [deleted] »

typpilol wrote: post #276
giraffe_lady wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And what worries me is those (both on the left and on the right) who think that silence is a form of opinion or approval. Definitely definitely. When a racist paramilitary is disappearing my neighbors my primary concern is whether people will consider me complicit for publicly stating that I have no duty to interfere. You don't have to have an opinion on everything but you do have to have an opinion on some things.…

Are you neighbors illegal aliens? If you believe we shouldn't have borders than just say so.

[deleted]

Re: Gem.coop

#322

Post by wizzwizz4 »

simianparrot wrote: post #319
shadowgovt wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the racist part. The racist part was him asserting he could walk down the streets of London and guess who was British. Given the disparity between his estimated number and the actual percentage of Brits by census (and the remarkable similarity to his number and the probable skin color of Brits by census), it is real hard to find the generosity to assume that he doesn't just mean "When did the Brits stop be…

He’s not saying the skin color is wrong. He’s saying it’s not ethnic British. Which is a thing. Same as there’s ethnic Japanese of which I am not one of. I can be a Japanese citizen but I cannot be Japanese. And that’s ok. Cultural and ethnic identity is a thing, except for some bizarre reason only ethnic minorities from specific origins get to have and observe that and not be called racist. Why is that? I'm Norwegia…

> He’s saying it’s not ethnic British. Which is a thing.

Yes, but… https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/arthur

Re: Gem.coop

#323

Post by pdntspa »

pluto_modadic wrote: post #312
pdntspa wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah and now we have a fragmented ecosystem. If the projects were placed under RubyCentral's management and active contributors' access is restored I don't see a big deal. Yes the manner in which it was handled was really bad but given the supply-chain attacks we're seeing against the Python and JS worlds, I think auditing contributor access and consolidating certain privileges is prudent. Again, handled poorly. But…

...so your argument is.... stay with the abusers?

I'm questioning this abuse of the term "abusers". It frames the arguments about this situation in bad faith.

Re: Gem.coop

#324

Post by directionless »

directionless wrote: post #64

Given some of the ways Andre Arko gets described (See https://justin.searls.co/posts/why-im-not-rushing-to-take-si... for a recent overview) I'm a little wary of what the motivation behind this is.

To follow up here, it sure sounds like Andre is not entirely acting in good faith.

https://rubycentral.org/news/rubygems-org-aws-root-access-ev... discusses that a precipitating event was Andre asking for a copy of the http access logs to monetize them.

I think this is confirmed by Mike Perham's comment in https://www.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/1o2bxol/comment/ninn6...

> In this case I have first hand knowledge since he pitched me on the idea: would Sidekiq, being a big sponsor of Ruby Central in the past, be interested if rubygems could somehow use the remote IP to identify the companies downloading the sidekiq gem so I could use that to upsell those companies

Re: Gem.coop

#325

Post by dismalaf »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #282
dismalaf wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ruby Central is a company that manages rubygems.org and rubygems. The maintainers who were locked out were being paid by Ruby Central while fundraising for their startup creating a competitor. Doesn't it seem like a bit of a security risk to you?

No. (Disclaimer I got paid to work on rubygems and have been doing this for 18 years)

How about now?

Re: Gem.coop

#326

Post by kortilla »

zen928 wrote: post #147
kortilla wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but silence is a form of opinion, of vote, of approval. No it’s not. Indifference is not approval. Open source is global and someone in a university in Argentina contributing some features does not “approve” of anything because she didn’t participate in some bickering about US identity politics.

Indifference is acceptance of the status quo, though, yeah? Whether that be on a conscious level of active avoidance or on a subconscious level of never mentally aligning it as a priority to build further understanding to form a thought-out opinion. There actually is a binary view on your stance against things when you see unfettered hate spread by others and choose (at some level) to not have an opinion. We've seen…

>Indifference is acceptance of the status quo, though, yeah?

No, the world does not revolve around your pet problems.

I do not know the regional politics of Bulgaria and if people started spewing Bulgarian politics in my open source community, my lack of participation is not acceptance of the status quo. I don’t even know what the status quo is and there are just two sides screeching at each other.

Re: Gem.coop

#327

Post by ruurd »

hatthew wrote: post #207
florkbork wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.coop Think about all of the organisational structures you know of. Then ask yourself how is a cooperative fundamentally untrustworthy?

My first-order heuristic is that legitimate websites tend to get one of the top TLDs (.com/.org, maybe .net/.io). In general, why should I trust domain_name.xyz over domain_name.com? There are obvious caveats, e.g. it doesn't matter as much for generic words like "gem" and for personal sites that I don't trust much in the first place. In this case, 3 seconds of critical thinking makes it clear that they have a plausi…

legitimate websites tend to get one of the top TLDs yeah. Sorry. That is unsubstantiated and by no means a good measure of trustworthyness.

Re: Gem.coop

#329

Post by hatthew »

ruurd wrote: post #327
hatthew wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first-order heuristic is that legitimate websites tend to get one of the top TLDs (.com/.org, maybe .net/.io). In general, why should I trust domain_name.xyz over domain_name.com? There are obvious caveats, e.g. it doesn't matter as much for generic words like "gem" and for personal sites that I don't trust much in the first place. In this case, 3 seconds of critical thinking makes it clear that they have a plausi…

legitimate websites tend to get one of the top TLDs yeah. Sorry. That is unsubstantiated and by no means a good measure of trustworthyness.

Luckily I track my browsing and have some stats I can share from the last 3 years on my non-work PC! Here's a breakdown (by time spent on website):

    94.3%: Original 7 TLDs + .io (which is common enough these days that I consider it no less trustworthy than .com).
     2.0%: Shortlink TLDs (e.g. .co, .it) that I usually only see when they are clearly associated with one of the TLDs above. Most of the time spent looking at these sites are when I right click -> open image in new tab, e.g. i.redd.it.
     0.7%: ccTLDs used as intended (sites associated the country's government, or personal websites that I don't put much trust into regardless of TLD).
     0.6%: twitch.tv; well-known enough that I don't have to think about its TLD.
     0.4%: .club; from a board game site my friends made me use. I inherently distrust this site regardless of TLD.
     0.2%: .wiki and .gg sites that are from a wiki moving away from fandom.
     1.8%: Remainder. Mix of things like .app, .xyz, .fun, etc.
Spot-checking a few dozen of my top sites in the last 1.8% shows that most are small/personal sites that I would not place trust into in the first place. Several are also websites like that .club site; garbage that at best are designed to shove ads in my face, and at worst are trying to pose as something official when they are not.

I only found a few websites that are official/authoritative for a substantial community or organization, but don't have one of the top TLDs: twitch.tv, arduino.cc, nouns.wtf, expo.dev, osu.ppy.sh, trackmania.exchange, dev.to, teenage.engineering, minecraft.wiki, *.wiki.gg, stackoverflow.blog, nebula.tv, perplexity.ai, and a few mastodon servers are the only sites in this category that I spent more than 60 seconds on in the last 3 years. Excluding twitch.tv, they combined represent Thank you for making me look into this, I now trust my heuristic even more!

Post reply on HN