Now I'm assuming you just jumped into the comments without understanding anything no?
EDIT:
> We shouldn't be giving corporations too much power by letting them buy board seats in a foundation to steer the language, in this case Rust.
@stale2002 I already mentioned this issue. However the user @secuthro22 continued trolling further with: "WhAT cONCerns?"
That would be way easier. Instead of writing a paragraph, I don't know, attacking someone for not reading past threads or comments, you could just give a single sentence, that describes the issue.
That would be way faster, and then everyone is happy.
If someone makes vague claims like that, they deserve to be dismissed. It is on you to state your concerns clearly, not on other people to read between the lines.
Well apparently there are a whole lot of people , in this thread who agree with me, that this was all pretty unclear.
If most people are unable to understand you or your arguments, that is the fault of the communicator, for being so bad at communicating.
Sure. But is this really about "most people" -- or just a (very) vocal minority that doesn't (want to) understand? It's not like there are thousands of people asking for clarification; I make it three, including you.
I'm just saying that at least to me,
>>> Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on programming language foundations for them to have the power to do this. [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 ]
and, at the latest,
>>> they shouldn't get the opportunity to buy a board seat, which is what Rust's structure allows. Hence why, it's appearing that Rust isn't being led by the community. [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514247 ]
felt perfectly clear. That's yanonninator's [sp?] whole beef, right there (twice over), AFAICS. What's not to understand about that?
Whats not to understand is the moral punchline of any of this, which is left completely unjustified, and is merely implied, without any reasons given.
Don't just say "They have a board seat". Instead say "They have a board seat, and are using that board seat for bad things X,Y, and Z, which have negative consequences A, B, and C".
Do you see how the corrected statement, actually gives people something to engage with, instead of someone merely asserting the amoral, unopinionated fact of "They have a board seat"?
If you actually make an argument, then other people can judge if they agree that things X, Y, and Z are bad, or they can judge if they agree or disagree with the consequences of A,B, and C.
But, when someone just says "They have a board seat", they are making a unopinionated factual statement, as opposed to actually justifying what the tweets intend to imply, which is that them having a board seat is bad for certain reasons which are unstated.
Unfortunately, though, I expect the reasons as for why the moral arguments are unstated, is because the person doesn't actually have any moral arguments. Instead, they likely just want to imply that certain things are wrong, without actually having to defend or give reasons as for why the things are at all bad.
Yes and no:
Yes, I understand that to some people, obviously including you, "They have [bought] a board seat" is an "amoral, unopinionated fact".
But no, that's not "instead of merely". Looks to me like the problem is that you don't see that to many people, "They have [bought] a board seat" is not just an "amoral, unopinionated fact" but in itself already a moral punchline to engage with. There is no need for any tweets to "intend to imply" anything. Whether any non-beneficial consequences have followed or are immediately to expect is, in their view, irrelevant: That's just not how shit is supposed to work, i.e. wrong in itself.
And frankly, it's a bit baffling to me how you and those who argue like you seem to have such a hard time understanding this view. I mean, it's one thing not to agree with it, but you're all coming off as if it hasn't even occurred to you that it's possible to see things that way. Makes me wonder if you're seriously so blind, or if it's some underhanded debating tactic. Whichever it is, in my eyes it seriously weakens your argument.
If I were a fiction writer, I could write a dozen different reasons as for what the problem is. But the issue is, that although I could definitely make up reasons, in my fiction book, as for why this is an issue, it tells me nothing about how this actually applies to the Rust community.
If you actually make the argument yourself, then it allows people to understand if there are specific issues, that are more or less bad, based on the informed opinion of someone directly from the community, instead of our uninformed, guesses, that might be right, or wrong, or slightly wrong.
For example, maybe the problem is similar to what Microsoft used to do. Maybe it isn't. Maybe Amazon is doing something that is bad, in a separate and different way, than what Microsoft did decades ago.
But if you don't actually make the argument, then other people cannot tell if the issue is bad, in a similar way as to how other past issues were, or if it is bad in a different way, than how the microsoft situation was bad.
Thats why it is better if people actually make the argument. Because although, yes, I could write a fiction book, or a script for a movie, to describe why these hypothetical issues are bad, I might get it completely wrong, and that the actual thing is bad in a different way, because of something specific to the rust community.
> if it hasn't even occurred to you that it's possible to see things that way.
The problem is that I can imagine a dozen different possible ways to "see things that way", which might be completely off the mark, or exactly correct of the reality of the situation.
I can imagine multiple different universes, where my guess would be right, or wrong, and I don't actually know which universe I am in, unless the informed party actually makes the argument, all the way through.
So I can both imagine arguments, as well as imagine how those guesses could be wrong, and why maybe the situation is wrong in a different way, than my first X number of guesses.
Thats why it is so much better if the person actually makes the argument, all the way through.
> Whether any non-beneficial consequences have followed or are immediately to expect is, in their view, irrelevant
Hey, if they had specifically said the following "I concede that there are no other negative effects at all, and that amazon hasn't done anything bad, and I have no other arguments, beyond them having a board seat is bad, in and of itself, with no other justification", then that would be an actual understandable, and straight forward argument!
But they might have made different arguments. If it literally is that they have absolutely no other arguments, beyond "Them having a board seat is bad, and there are no other bad consequences", then it would be nice if they explicitly said that.
> If I were a fiction writer, I could write a dozen different reasons as for what the problem is. But the issue is, that although I could definitely make up reasons, in my fiction book, as for why this is an issue, it tells me nothing about how this actually applies to the Rust community.
You're still not getting it: It's NOT A MATTER OF "applies". It's a question of principle.
> If you actually make the argument yourself, then it allows people to understand if there are specific issues, that are more or less bad, based on the informed opinion of someone directly from the community, instead of our uninformed, guesses, that might be right, or wrong, or slightly wrong.
He already made his argument in full. It's just that you're refusing to acknowledge that it is an argument.
So, thank you, I think I'm done here: I'm obviously unable to convey to you what you're not getting, and I don't think you need to go any more rounds of the same -- I trust it's clear enough to everyone else by now that this is due to your stubborn refusal.
Principles could apply to a given community in different ways. One principle in one context, could be more important than others. Thus, the person explaining their position out, even further, is useful.
For example, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", is very important for law, because it involves locking people up.
But it is likely much less important, for determining if your friend lied to you about why they didn't want to go to dinner yesterday. The only consequence of this, is maybe you'll be a little bit annoyed at your friend.
Or take the principle of "free speech", which people talk about as a principle, and not just a law, all the time. Free speech is a principle, but it is still more important when it relates to the government, than to private individuals and what individuals allow to be said in their houses.
Thats why bringing up the principle, as it relates to the rust community, is important for a knowledgeable person to do.
> He already made his argument in full.
If someone is making, this pretty.... shall we say... specific argument which is straight up "There are no negative consequences at all to this, but I don't care", it is important to be more clear about it.
The reason, is because that is an opinion, that many people would normally only accuse someone of having, as a straight up attack. As in, People attack someone, by claiming that this is their position.
And because someone in good faith, might not want to attack someone, unjustly, it is important for the person making the original argument, to be even more clear, than normal.
I would be extremely hesitant to accuse someone of holding that position, unless they say, multiple times, that they simply do not care about any negative consequences, in the most forceful, and extreme way, because if I mistakenly, accidently accuse someone of holding this position, they might think I am unjustly attacking their position.
> it is an argument.
It is an argument, for which many people would get upset if I claimed that this is what they are arguing. And part of acting in good faith, is not accusing someone, of very extreme opinions, unless they are even more clear, than normal.
Instead, before accusing someone of holding that position, I would leave open the possibility that there are some other, unstated arguments, that they could actually mean.
Holding open the possibility, that someone could mean many different things, as opposed to the most extreme position, is a good thing to do, so that one does not jump to accusatory conclusions.