This is pretty funny; there's been some talk on twitter this week that we might have spotted _why @ PyCon 2012 [1].
Where’s _why?
71–80 of 191 posts
Re: Where’s _why?
#72I find it highly likely that _why is still among us.
I agree. And I also think we should leave him alone. It is natural to just want to know where someone is. But he intentionally left the scene, and the right thing to do is to respect that.
btw, this is a good read: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/05/15/why-a-tale-of-a-p...
Re: Where’s _why?
#73Am I the only one to think that posts about _why is like writing a love letter to the girlfriend who dumped you 3 years ago!?
It's a shame that he disappeared but that was 3 years ago. There are MANY an amazing talent in the industry.
Re: Where’s _why?
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I opened my comment by praising the exact same things you’re praising, so let’s be sure that we both understand I was criticizing just one or two small things that I care deeply about.
I care deeply about _why and his contributions as well, and I still cringe thinking about how I felt the moment I realized he and his work and his wit were gone from the community forever. The Poignant Guide was my intro to Ruby and still sets the whimsical, slightly surreal tone in the back of my mind for how I think about coding to this day. But, raganwald, upon reading and re-reading it, I didn't take one bit of "…
my impression right of the bat with "Let's see now" and onward was that you were being harshly critical.
I was being harshly critical of calling the man at work and naming him. I also wrote:
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.
I mentioned the things I liked and said so. What you don’t seem to like is the lack of “balance,” as if given that I spent a few paragraphs talking about the stuff I didn’t like, I should spend ten or twenty paragraphs about the stuff I liked. But my feelings about the things that I liked were just that I liked them. You have stronger feelings about the things that you liked, so you write your comment in accordance with your feelings.
I am not writing a book review for the NYT, and neither are you, that’s the beauty of the forum. I am obliged to be polite, to avoid name calling and other poisonous behaviour, but I am also obliged to—as the saying goes—sit down at the keyboard and open a vein.
Re: Where’s _why?
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
I care deeply about _why and his contributions as well, and I still cringe thinking about how I felt the moment I realized he and his work and his wit were gone from the community forever. The Poignant Guide was my intro to Ruby and still sets the whimsical, slightly surreal tone in the back of my mind for how I think about coding to this day. But, raganwald, upon reading and re-reading it, I didn't take one bit of "…
my impression right of the bat with "Let's see now" and onward was that you were being harshly critical. I was being harshly critical of calling the man at work and naming him. I also wrote: 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 not…
Sure, not a book review for NYT, but it is the top comment on HN, which has the unfortunate consequence of being the first impression a lot of people had of an article that had a lot of hard, thoughtful work put into it.
It also caused some to actually not read the article, and that's what drew me out. Annie's work here deserved a better first impression from the HN community, and I think anyone who has an interest in _why would benefit from reading it. The anonymity thing was a sidebar at best.
Re: Where’s _why?
#76Earlier 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…
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…
[deleted]
Re: Where’s _why?
#77Let’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…
This was probably unintended, but giving his real name in your article also marks a precedent.
Even though it was well known in Ruby circles, it had never been published in the press. Now that it has been, his Wikipedia page has been updated accordingly (now that they have a "reliable source" in Wikipedia parlance), which exposes his identity much more than it used to.
For that reason, I wouldn't mind if you redacted his name, the name of his employer and the way you found him out of the article. The same goes for the mirror of the infamous wordpress page.
He made it clear that he wants to be left alone. This doesn't help.
Edit: the mention of his sister was also completely out of place.
Re: Where’s _why?
#78I read this with interest. I don't want to bs you about that. I'd even go so far as to say this is an article your girlfriend or boyfriend should read... BUT what this journalist; would be programmer did for the record is the equivalent of coming into my home and pooping on the floor. THAT, I can not abide. My personal rule of thumb when learning anything new... LOOK AND LISTEN.
It's down vote(s) like this on an otherwise benign comment that drives me to remove myself from the community... much like the subject of the article.
Re: Where’s _why?
#79Re: Where’s _why?
#80TL;DR "Jonathan [Gillette] is _why, he is fine, and he just wants to be left alone."