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

Dear GitHub

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 491 posts

Re: Dear GitHub

#481

Post by pron »

13thLetter wrote: post #480
pron wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but do you have a better system? The large, mainstream platforms need to be managed somehow, and their content has to be not too far from the consensus. You don't have to like it, but that's how the mainstream operates. As long as you have other venues where you can do stuff that's outside the consensus, I don't see the problem. I think that the way GitHub is managed now in terms of content (including code of con…

Oh, I agree with you as far as majority rules. It's not great, but you need something and that's less unjust than most other options. What I'm complaining (pointlessly) about is that in these cases majority does not rule: some administrator or corporate functionary has already decided, and that's that. With regards to who should be trusted to manage communities, I'm afraid I can't convince myself to believe in the ex…

> Not if the "experts" do everything in their power to marginalize and poison the public image of those non-mainstream platforms, unfortunately.

Why not? I mean I can see how the "victims" wouldn't like it, but a society without any such form of influence is a society without interaction. For example, one person living in an empty world can be completely free (within their abilities), but two (or more) who may interact cannot. Either you allow one the freedom to restrict the other's freedom, or you limit both persons' freedom to exclude mutual freedom-limiting actions (by whatever means, be they forceful enforcement, internalized ethics or any other). The best you can do is manage freedom to some mutually acceptable level.

As the accusation directed towards those "free" programmers is precisely that they marginalize others (and contrary to the insistence of some of those programmers, that accusation is backed by actual data), this "persecution" is the best means we have curtail their behavior (unfortunately they are not persuaded by other means), and since the framework of our society allows this form of persecution but not actual punitive legal actions, it seems quite fair to me. Further restrictions against such persecution would naturally cut both ways.

So, given the current legal framework where marginalization is legal but may of course have social consequences, those developers would just need to be tough and bear them, which is pretty much what they say their own victims should do. Then why do experts prefer the well beings of some marginalized groups over that of exclusive programmers? Well, as any form of full or partial freedom-restriction works both ways, the thinking is that social groups with less power deserve more protection. Obviously, no one like to be marginalized in any way -- even the more powerful members of society -- but if someone must be hurt, we prefer it to be a group that will suffer less real damage.

In any case, if you prefer that such persecution would be prohibited with more forceful enforcement (say, legal), I'm sure that could be arranged, but I'm not sure those programmers would like the result any better.

Re: Dear GitHub

#482

Post by talmand »

pron wrote: post #471
talmand wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I didn't say that the majority rules, just that the majority defines what is mainstream. Sorry my friend, that is majority rules. The problem is we already know what this form of thinking eventually leads to. It's happened several times throughout human history. The problem is one group feeling they have the power to dictate to the "other". Especially when the group dynamic and what is considered other changes fre…

> The problem is one group feeling they have the power to dictate to the "other". Nobody is dictating. Do whatever the hell you want. Just don't put on an off-Broadway shown on Broadway. That's it. > What you consider your mainstream ideals today may be somebody else's fringe tomorrow. Sure, but that doesn't mean you NBC should broadcast Oz. That's what HBO is for (again, I'm not comparing HBO with misogynistic commu…

I'm sorry, but I still see examples that only explain what majority rules is. I'm not seeing where you are suggesting one thing or another different than what I've said. Again, it's an excellent system as long as you agree with the majority.

I'm assuming you're not suggesting that since people "always" change the context on the usage of somebody else's words that it's an acceptable thing to do.

Re: Dear GitHub

#483

Post by 13thLetter »

pron wrote: post #481
13thLetter wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I agree with you as far as majority rules. It's not great, but you need something and that's less unjust than most other options. What I'm complaining (pointlessly) about is that in these cases majority does not rule: some administrator or corporate functionary has already decided, and that's that. With regards to who should be trusted to manage communities, I'm afraid I can't convince myself to believe in the ex…

> Not if the "experts" do everything in their power to marginalize and poison the public image of those non-mainstream platforms, unfortunately. Why not? I mean I can see how the "victims" wouldn't like it, but a society without any such form of influence is a society without interaction. For example, one person living in an empty world can be completely free (within their abilities), but two (or more) who may intera…

I think you're missing the distinction between what is legal and what is right. I will cheerfully agree that the "expert" attempt to marginalize those who disagree with them politically is legal, and any attempt to legally prohibit it would have worse consequences (not least of which, the experts would use new laws as a weapon against their enemies rather than the other way around.) I will not, however, grant that it is right.

> Well, as any form of full or partial freedom-restriction works both ways, the thinking is that social groups with less power deserve more protection. Obviously, no one like to be marginalized in any way -- even the more powerful members of society -- but if someone must be hurt, we prefer it to be a group that will suffer less real damage.

Bit of a tangent, but if you deliberately wanted to create furious opposition to your policies there's no better way than to put unequal protection front and center. "Everybody should be protected from X" is a winning policy. "These strangers over here should be protected from X, but not you" is, to put it charitably, not.

Re: Dear GitHub

#484

Post by awendt »

peterfpf wrote: post #243
krschultz wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An open question is how the community should provide feedback. Trello provides a decent example of how to do it well [1], but GitHub feels like a black box. I've been on GitHub since 2008 and I have been paying every month for years, but other than emailing support I have no idea how to vote for a feature request. My personal pet peeve is not being able to mark a public repo as 'deprecated'. There are a lot of other…

I normally put a big "[DEPRECATED]" notice at the beginning of the README. This normally doesn't go unnoticed. Another good example is harthur's "[UNMAINTAINED]" [1] [1] https://github.com/harthur/brain

Someone came up with http://unmaintained.tech/ for exactly this reason. You can add a badge to your README.

Re: Dear GitHub

#485

Post by pron »

13thLetter wrote: post #483
pron wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not if the "experts" do everything in their power to marginalize and poison the public image of those non-mainstream platforms, unfortunately. Why not? I mean I can see how the "victims" wouldn't like it, but a society without any such form of influence is a society without interaction. For example, one person living in an empty world can be completely free (within their abilities), but two (or more) who may intera…

I think you're missing the distinction between what is legal and what is right. I will cheerfully agree that the "expert" attempt to marginalize those who disagree with them politically is legal, and any attempt to legally prohibit it would have worse consequences (not least of which, the experts would use new laws as a weapon against their enemies rather than the other way around.) I will not, however, grant that it…

> I will not, however, grant that it is right.

What proper mechanisms, then, does society grant the victims of weak-group-marginalization to fight their own marginalization? You're suggesting that even drawing people's attention to it is wrong.

> Bit of a tangent, but if you deliberately wanted to create furious opposition to your policies there's no better way than to put unequal protection front and center. "Everybody should be protected from X" is a winning policy. "These strangers over here should be protected from X, but not you" is, to put it charitably, not.

Unequal protection is already present everywhere. It is not binary (neither is it in this case), but it is very much at the core of modern democracy. The idea is that different people benefit from society to different extents or are harmed by society to a different extent, and therefore the taxes they need to pay or the investment they get from society should reflect that. Victims of a crime -- say theft -- are eligible for restitution, while people who are not victims, aren't. The idea of unequal protection in this case is that some groups are victims to unfair exclusion, and correcting that exclusion is fair.

Re: Dear GitHub

#486

Post by pron »

talmand wrote: post #482
pron wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is one group feeling they have the power to dictate to the "other". Nobody is dictating. Do whatever the hell you want. Just don't put on an off-Broadway shown on Broadway. That's it. > What you consider your mainstream ideals today may be somebody else's fringe tomorrow. Sure, but that doesn't mean you NBC should broadcast Oz. That's what HBO is for (again, I'm not comparing HBO with misogynistic commu…

I'm sorry, but I still see examples that only explain what majority rules is. I'm not seeing where you are suggesting one thing or another different than what I've said. Again, it's an excellent system as long as you agree with the majority. I'm assuming you're not suggesting that since people "always" change the context on the usage of somebody else's words that it's an acceptable thing to do.

> I'm sorry, but I still see examples that only explain what majority rules is.

No. What I'm explaining is not how the majority opinion is treated, but how the minority opinion is, namely, it is not blocked. Majority rule could also mean that the minority is barred from voicing their opinions, but that is not the system I'm describing.

> Again, it's an excellent system as long as you agree with the majority.

I don't know about excellent, but it works well well even if you're not. I can't see how society can operate if every opinion -- no matter how fringe -- is given the same prominence.

Re: Dear GitHub

#487

Post by 13thLetter »

pron wrote: post #485
13thLetter wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the distinction between what is legal and what is right. I will cheerfully agree that the "expert" attempt to marginalize those who disagree with them politically is legal, and any attempt to legally prohibit it would have worse consequences (not least of which, the experts would use new laws as a weapon against their enemies rather than the other way around.) I will not, however, grant that it…

> I will not, however, grant that it is right . What proper mechanisms, then, does society grant the victims of weak-group-marginalization to fight their own marginalization? You're suggesting that even drawing people's attention to it is wrong. > Bit of a tangent, but if you deliberately wanted to create furious opposition to your policies there's no better way than to put unequal protection front and center. "Every…

> Victims of a crime -- say theft -- are eligible for restitution, while people who are not victims, aren't.

But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't endorse a policy where, say, white victims of theft are entitled to restitution, whereas black victims are not. That's what is all too frequently proposed by the "experts."

Re: Dear GitHub

#488

Post by pron »

13thLetter wrote: post #487
pron wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will not, however, grant that it is right . What proper mechanisms, then, does society grant the victims of weak-group-marginalization to fight their own marginalization? You're suggesting that even drawing people's attention to it is wrong. > Bit of a tangent, but if you deliberately wanted to create furious opposition to your policies there's no better way than to put unequal protection front and center. "Every…

> Victims of a crime -- say theft -- are eligible for restitution, while people who are not victims, aren't. But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't endorse a policy where, say, white victims of theft are entitled to restitution, whereas black victims are not. That's what is all too frequently proposed by the "experts."

I think that the experts say that blacks are victims of theft by whites. A quick read of the economic history of the US would show that they are clearly right. You don't need to be an expert to see that this is the case. Those opposed to restitution are not opposed because it's wrong, unfair or unjust (as it is clearly right, fair and just), but because at this point it may cause more trouble than good.

Re: Dear GitHub

#489

Post by 13thLetter »

pron wrote: post #488
13thLetter wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Victims of a crime -- say theft -- are eligible for restitution, while people who are not victims, aren't. But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't endorse a policy where, say, white victims of theft are entitled to restitution, whereas black victims are not. That's what is all too frequently proposed by the "experts."

I think that the experts say that blacks are victims of theft by whites. A quick read of the economic history of the US would show that they are clearly right. You don't need to be an expert to see that this is the case. Those opposed to restitution are not opposed because it's wrong, unfair or unjust (as it is clearly right, fair and just), but because at this point it may cause more trouble than good.

I'm sorry, at this point I don't even understand what you're saying or how it relates to the topic. I meant "theft" as in, you know, somebody breaks into your house and steals your TV set, not some weird fringe theory about reparations.

Re: Dear GitHub

#490

Post by kelseydh »

cookiecaper wrote: post #334
jeddawson wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditto. Maybe 98%. I think that's a big part of the disconnect I'm seeing here in the comments. Those of us that live in private repos are likely pretty happy with how things currently work especially since we're the ones paying to use the service. If it wasn't working well for our teams, we'd find somewhere else to spend our money. That being said, we're certainly the minority when it comes to users on the platform.

>That being said, we're certainly the minority when it comes to users on the platform. But you're the huge majority of people who give GitHub money. It makes sense not to prioritize the pain points of open-source projects when you lose money by hosting them.

That's not how it works. Happy consumers leads to happy enterprise users. They are one and the same.
Post reply on HN