Has anyone checked int __cdecl why(); ?
Where’s _why?
41–50 of 191 posts
Re: Where’s _why?
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was at one point a very public figure - at least in this community. Just because the persona was his public face doesn't mean that the "person" was completely private. Attempting to reach out of a formerly public figure for a comment (or even a heads-up) is entirely acceptable. It is obviously something that he has taken steps to deal with. What if _why had some comment about his info-suicide or the concept in gen…
Serious question here: Where do you draw the line? What makes someone a “public figure?" Does publishing open source make you a public figure? How about speaking at a conference? Playing in a band under a pseudonym? Playing in a band under your real name? Commenting under a pseudonym on Hacker News? How about commenting under an identifiable handle like rbraithwaite? I honestly don’t have a pat answer to this questio…
I think you could make a convincing argument that _why would fit the legal definition of a Limited-Purpose Public Figure. http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-...
Re: Where’s _why?
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was at one point a very public figure - at least in this community. Just because the persona was his public face doesn't mean that the "person" was completely private. Attempting to reach out of a formerly public figure for a comment (or even a heads-up) is entirely acceptable. It is obviously something that he has taken steps to deal with. What if _why had some comment about his info-suicide or the concept in gen…
Serious question here: Where do you draw the line? What makes someone a “public figure?" Does publishing open source make you a public figure? How about speaking at a conference? Playing in a band under a pseudonym? Playing in a band under your real name? Commenting under a pseudonym on Hacker News? How about commenting under an identifiable handle like rbraithwaite? I honestly don’t have a pat answer to this questio…
What makes someone a “public figure?"
This is one of the biggest problems of our time. Because omnipresent, eternally persistent tracking technologies threaten to make everyone and even every thing into a public figure.
Worse, while publicity has both costs and benefits, they're usually asymmetric: It's hard to derive much benefit from a wave of publicity unless you're carefully and consciously prepared to surf that wave, whereas destroying someone's happiness, career, or relationships via stalking or character assassination can be cheap and easy.
Re: Where’s _why?
#44I know this is a bit offtopic, but does anyone else get a 404 when you try to readability the article?
Re: Where’s _why?
#45And where the fuck is Mark Pilgrim?
I like to think he's on a beach on a remote indonesian island, drinking out of a fresh coconut he just harvested, resting in the shade to the sound of the waves rolling on the sand and the far away cries of the Gibbons and paradise birds in the forest.
Re: Where’s _why?
#46This is a really great article. I didn't realize that Slate gave their journalists a month out of every year to do something like this.
I think the description of her initially trying to learn ruby is really instructive for everyone who wants more people to learn how to code. There are just simple things you don't think about that a beginner can really get hung up on. For example, why can't you enter code into a word processor? How do you run scripts? I don't think programming books do a very good job of explaining these types of things, even now. Zed Shaw's Learn X the Hard Way series is probably the best at it I've seen so far.
Re: Where’s _why?
#47Earlier 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…
That's interesting that you consider your online persona distinct from yourself. I find addressing you as raganwald here on HN as awkward, so I have instead called you by your first name. Do you have a preference? Is that preference related to the distinction you wish to maintain?
Re: Where’s _why?
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for this review. It helped me decide not to read the article, both because it doesn't have content and because I have been deliberately avoiding knowing _why's "real" name.
I disagree that it doesn't have content. It's an article oriented to relating to non-programmers what it is like to learn to program, and for that audience I think it does it's job well. edit: also I am curious how you can decide an article that you haven't read has no content.
When are we EVER covered in the media, other than to talk about how much money is flowing through our companies? This is amazing.
Re: Where’s _why?
#49Earlier 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…
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 l…
Hey Reg, I'm curious to what extent you believe that private citizens have a right not to be reported on. If Annie Lowrey had decided to interview Reg Braithwaite and couldn't get a hold of you, if she'd pursued a similar course of action, would it have been intrusive?
I get that having made something public once does not necessarily mean that one opens their life up to scrutiny forever and ever, but to what extent does closing down one's works and leaving the public eye entitle one to a lack of scrutiny/inquiry?
(As an entirely meta aside, I'd be curious to what extent the cultural divide over privacy ethos between Canadians and Americans is at play here. My impression, at least with my wife's Canadian family, and our collective friends, have different expectations from the Americans i grew up with.)
Re: Where’s _why?
#50Earlier 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. (As a general point, you don't write articles about public figures, and he was absolutely a public figure, without giving them the chance to respond.)" There's a difference between "giving them the chance to respond" and what happened here. Being a journalist doesn't give someone an excuse to…
"Being a journalist doesn't give someone an excuse to act outside the bounds of polite society."
I thought we expected journalists to dig a bit deeper and not just take things at face value? Sometimes that means poking around when people might prefer you not to be.