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

_why is no more

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 421 posts

Re: _why is no more

#401

Post by geira »

delackner wrote: post #326
fizx wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google cache is still live: http://74.125.155.132/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&#38... Edit: Also, twitter search results: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%40_why Notably: racheltostring: RT: @_why: programming is rather thankless. u see your works become replaced by superior ones in a year. unable to run at all in a few more. about 21 hours ago from TwitterFox

This is exactly why such a complete self-deletion is worrying. I wasn't around in the neolithic days of the internet, but some people may remember that an early formative event in the WELL days was that a very well known and active contributor to the site deleted his entire posting history and then commited real life suicide. I dearly hope this has not happened and _why has simply moved on to other things...

I guess you're thinking of Tom Mandel. First, he deleted his posts after a tiff with his ex-fiance. Also, he died of lung cancer, not suicide. Full story here:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.05/ff_well_pr.html

Re: _why is no more

#403

Post by bigtestys »

ahoyhere wrote: post #209
Semiapies wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rude, I'd agree. No more, though - we're certainly not talking about exposing where Salman Rushdie's sleeping tonight. How rude, even, is an open question. This doesn't exactly rise to the level of pestering J. D. Salinger at his house. Trying to be anonymous is one thing. Trying to remain anonymous while writing books and blogs and making public appearances, all under one common identity, is downright quixotic and j…

Except that this enigma was something just about everyone treasured about him. He's a Ruby community treasure, our slightly twisted crown jewels. And the reason nobody tried harder before, or if they did they kept quiet, was out of respect for that cherishing. He has always seemed a bit delicate, and that's why the rest of us always treated him gently. And he repaid us ten-fold with his quirky gifts. This is like the…

The rape of a beloved children's character analogy is quite apt, considering that _why was a huge furry, and like furrys would have constant fantasies of raping childrens characters...

Re: _why is no more

#404

Post by delackner »

geira wrote: post #401
delackner wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why such a complete self-deletion is worrying. I wasn't around in the neolithic days of the internet, but some people may remember that an early formative event in the WELL days was that a very well known and active contributor to the site deleted his entire posting history and then commited real life suicide. I dearly hope this has not happened and _why has simply moved on to other things...

I guess you're thinking of Tom Mandel. First, he deleted his posts after a tiff with his ex-fiance. Also, he died of lung cancer, not suicide. Full story here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.05/ff_well_pr.html

I don't remember the fellow's name, but the anecdote was related in a book about online communities written by Clifford Stoll, and definitely involved suicide, not cancer. But the anecdote he related could have been incorrect...

Re: _why is no more

#406

Post by bunnny »

sho wrote: post #135
matthewking wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He could have had his computer, or email hacked.. have to wait to see if we hear from him before we assume he actually cleared all the accounts himself.

That explanation seems highly unlikely, especially considering the lack of any messages saying as such. update: I assume I'm being downvoted because people do consider it a likely explanation? It would be utterly unprecedented AFAIK.

No, you're being down-voted because you're a selfish arse. Is the primary concern the slight inconvenience his disappearance will cause you?? ... to us, the answer is No.

Re: _why is no more

#407

Post by bunnny »

petercooper wrote: post #370
thismat wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This bothers me honestly, why would you accept benchmark screenshots from someone that made claims against another persons code? Was this an interview or something? Was _why alerted to this as a chance to refute the claim by providing his own benchmarks? Could the data even be validated and not easily doctored?

The benchmarks were from what was designed to be a fair test. It might not have worked out that way, but that was the intention of the creator nonetheless. I stuck a massive disclaimer on my link to those benchmarks and let people at it (since NO benchmarks are EVER undisputed - biggest lesson I've learned). The post is at http://www.rubyinside.com/ruby-xml-performance-benchmarks-16... if you want to see how it was p…

Yeah, it sounds like you were really trying to be thoughtful, gracious, and evenhanded in your comparisons:

Nokogiri: A Faster, Better HTML and XML Parser for Ruby (than Hpricot) http://www.rubyinside.com/nokogiri-ruby-html-parser-and-xml-...

Re: _why is no more

#408

Post by bunnny »

scott_s wrote: post #181
sho wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, look, everything you say is technically correct. But my reaction remains the same. It's not about "rights" - I agree I have no "right" whatsoever to continue to benefit from _why's beneficence in perpetuity. No, _why hasn't breached any laws or contracts, but he has breached social norms. For example, this site. I think all would agree that we have no "right" to its continued existence. None of us pay or contri…

I think your point of social norms is an important one. You have the right to be rude, but people won't be happy with you if you exercise that right.

Did _why strike you as a guy who lived within the social norms? I mean, come on.

I would like to also point out that the people who "won't be happy with you if you exercise that right" don't actually care about you any way... so what's the loss?

Re: _why is no more

#409

Post by bunnny »

lil_cain wrote: post #329
akd wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keeping software hosted is active. Let's say he waited until his domain name expired... then he could say "I'm not spending the $10" and let it go offline, and people would excoriate him then. He just chose to rip the Band-Aid off at once instead of in bits and pieces.

I think, if he's posted up and said 'hey, I'm fed up with this internet thing. I'm taking everything down, can someone else host them', there'd have been a queue. Certainly, I'd have been very glad to host the Poignant Guide

There are copies of it floating around. Here's one on Scribed: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2236084/Whys-Poignant-Guide-to-Rub...

I understand that you're referring to the web-based version which has a different feel to it, but the content does still exist. Nothing lasts forever--enjoy it while you can.

Re: _why is no more

#410

Post by bunnny »

sho wrote: post #273
akd wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keeping software hosted is active. Let's say he waited until his domain name expired... then he could say "I'm not spending the $10" and let it go offline, and people would excoriate him then. He just chose to rip the Band-Aid off at once instead of in bits and pieces.

They were hosted free on github and/or rubyforge. He had to go in and actively delete them. If he had done nothing, they would still be there right now and there wouldn't be all this kerfuffle.

AFAIK there are forks/mirrors of his work on GitHub; so why are you having such a hard time dealing with his repos being deleted by him? It sounds like you're just whining.
Post reply on HN