Everything aside, I enjoyed the "And now for something completely different" part.
That’s what I adore about truly open source projects such as Python, but also Linux or Rust, for example. They’re not polished products of faceless corporations. They have rough edges, as everything does, and that’s okay.
And time and again some human spirit shines through, like it does here. A welcome reminder we’re all in this together, and that next quarter’s shareholder revenue is genuinely meaningless in the bigger picture.
Most corporation products are absolutely horrible comparing to Python, the polished ones you know of are few exceptions. I've seen a few internal programming languages and anything publicly known is ... at least usable.
Secondly, why does adding this section affect that even if you think that?
Even Python is no longer the same language that I learned almost 20 years ago, but I'm happy of what its current stewards have made of it.
The reversibility trick is kind of cute - but can anyone write a legitimate Python code statement that also works in reverse? I sort of doubt it, the function declaration has to come first.
Needless and pointless on release notes page of a programming language.
It's better to stick to programming. Leave politics to politicians.
Unexplained claim about what's being reached for.
> Morals are more general than that.
Yes, obviously. How does this apply to what I said?
> This isn't high school debate club.
Okay?
My response is to point out that your narrowing of the space of dicussion is not only noticed but acknowledged and explicitly challenged. In a conversation about morals this framing of yours is inappropriate and counterproductive. It is notable that you responded in the way you did, implying you're trying to keep this tactic subversive rather than explicitly acknowledging it. Classic move in rhetoric, to be sure.
You're acting like a smarmy high schooler who thinks they're good at reasoning because they're good at "debate".
Clear?
No, it doesn't "just so happen", any more than saying "everyone should be given a fair trial" in a legal system "just so happens" to apply to the guilty and innocent.
> Clear?
Your response is entirely rhetoric, attempting to criticise me rather than my argument. It's clear how you feel; not what you think.
One of the two opinions, which are all that exists. All reasonable people have the one opinion, and all other people are all idiots who all have the other opinion.
Just to take an extreme example, imagine someone put in a note expressing empathy for the families of the victims of a natural disaster in their release notes. The following conversation takes place on Hacker News:
A: I don't really think these sorts of statements have a place in release notes. They don't ultimately accomplish anything or help anyone.
B: I think there's no problem with expressing compassion like this. It's not particularly obtrusive and isn't harming anyone.
You: How would you feel if the release notes had expressed glee at the disaster instead? You would oppose that, right? That means you must also oppose empathetic messages in release notes, to be consistent.
Or to sum up this whole thing in a dril Tweet: https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312
>That means you must also oppose empathetic messages in release notes, to be consistent.
Yes. It will be interesting reading these cultural artifacts after 50 further years of geo-political development.
The opposing cutesy poem wouldn't be defaming immigrants!
It would be acknowledging a nation can't exist without borders, sovereignty matters, and unchecked migration is not universally good.
That so many commenters here are missing a key factor here (that the opposing view is presented as a disingenuous straw-man in the release notes) is quite illustrative of why it's not being seen as an issue.
So the EU and US are both monolithic blocks with no internal diversity, right?
"Acknowledging" is an especially interesting choice of word here, as if presupposing that your misunderstanding of the world is inherently correct.
The US was built on unchecked migration and it did pretty well out of it.
It's also worth pointing out that Python (and it's ecosystem) is developed by an international team of people, most of whom volunteer their time out of good will and sense of shared purpose across diverse cultures.
The "both sides" logic seems to miss the point that world without mutual aid and international, cross-cultural cooperation would be one that would not have Python and it's ecosystem. It's not political for the Python developers to support such a view, such a view is foundational for the existence of Python.
They wrote about how abortion is very often immoral and unnecessary. That would get people up in arms.
When you include the contemporary context of illegal US border crossings at record numbers [1], it's clearly making a political statement. Pretending the development of a programming language is inexorably linked to unchecked immigration is disingenuous.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2023/08/31/border...
The statement there only reads to me as a call to have compassion for those caught up in what will be a perpetually escalating migration crisis (and will likely soon make migrants of those who are currently protecting their borders).
> Pretending the development of a programming language is inexorably linked to unchecked immigration is disingenuous.
Where am I (or anyone else) making that claim? I'm claiming cross-cultural/international cooperation and mutual aid are unquestionably tied to the development of not just a programming language, but all open source software. Anyone who has worked in this space at all can likely list someone they have worked with on nearly every continent.
The fact that you view calls for compassion and empathy as calls for "unchecked migration" is a bit concerning.
>Do not be so stupid to think that
>A place should only belong to those who are born there
>...
>It is not okay to say
>Build a wall to keep them out
>Do not be so stupid to think that >A place should only belong to those who are born there
Does not imply unchecked migration since the entire social fabric of the United States is a based upon people moving here from somewhere else. Currently around 14% of US citizens are foreign born. Claiming they don't belong here would be considered an extreme view even among fairly right-wing Americans. Implying that only people born here belong here is, in fact, a absolutely 0 immigration view, that would essentially destroy the United States since our population growth is almost entirely from immigration.
Likewise:
>It is not okay to say >Build a wall to keep them out
US immigration has not resorted to wall building as a form of immigration control for all but the most recent years. Again, nobody I know who is opposed to wall building supports "unchecked migration".
More immigrants than ever are pouring over the US / Mexico border. The mayor of NYC (a self-proclaimed "sanctuary city") is now warning of the city's destruction as a result of the overwhelming influx [1]. This mayor is politically aligned with the party of our President, who presumably has no political interest in embarrassments like this, yet it's still happening.
"Unchecked migration" is essentially what is already happening, at least in the US. A cutesy poem in the release notes of software (??) that paints the side opposing it as mouth-breathing bigots and the supportive side as empathetic truth-tellers is unnecessary at best.
[1] https://cbs4local.com/news/local/nyc-mayor-warns-of-citys-de...
At a minimum, you are confusing “nation” with “state”, as the former manifestly can exist without borders, which are a feature of the latter.
You're all free to stop using Python.
"Share our food, Share our homes and Share our countries" is quite a big demand on everyone else. I am certainly not willing to do so without limit and without regard to context (e.g. the Muslim gang war that flared up in Sweden).
Neither are a lot of the people who initially advocated for the policies, ie NYC, as we're finding out.
Immigration is great. Unfettered illegal immigration is not. It puts pressure on social infrastructure and causes social strife. Look at us here in Canada. Most of our immigration is legal, and yet our wealth-per-person is shrinking because we can't build infrastructure fast enough to keep up with population growth.
A lot of Green/Progressive voters in Western Europe live in affluent neighbourhoods where practical effects of current migration waves are very limited, and often positive (e.g. cheap workforce for your household, but your kids' school does not suffer from any gang activity).
Voting patterns across income groups tend to reflect that discrepancy.
Just 2 counter examples (anecdotes but I'm sure a bit of searching will reveal numbers to back this up): the first electorate that directly voted a green candidate Was the Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg electorate in 2002, likely one of the places in Germany with the highest proportion of immigrants (when it was still not gentrified like it is today.). Another anecdote, this map of the French elections https://img.lemde.fr/2022/04/11/0/0/1051/1674/800/0/75/0/869...
Showing that the anti immigration party of le pen is mainly winning in rural areas, and the urban centre of Paris is in fact voting the most left candidate
That is an egg-and-chicken question. "White flight" is a thing and people who moved away from ghettoizing cities/neigbourhoods into the surrounding suburbia will likely vote against further immigration.
On top of that, we are now seeing that outer suburbs which were guaranteed winning electorates for right parties are now becoming more and more left leaning because young urban dwellers are moving there because they can't afford the cities.
Maybe rurals are well aware of what's happening in urban regions and don't want it ? Maybe these people like their environment as it is and see no point in change ? I don't know, just guessing. :-)
It's a statement about immigrants being people, that the hateful stories we tell about them are false that we have responsibility to them as fellow humans. It advocates for no specific political action, you can hold these beliefs and still be against immigration for whatever reason.
Same applies to entire countries; their capabilities and societal will are greater than an individual's, but still limited.
Declarations of very broad commitments towards the rest of humanity may sound noble, but wise(r) people should stay away from them.
And in this case to me the blank is "take on the world's tired huddled masses and set them up to be just as self-sufficient and successful as their native born." And I think that's pretty actionable, just about anyone could probably think of more than a few things that would push us closer to this.
It's also a statement against rational thinking and discussions because it portrays both sides to an almost satirical level: "no borders" vs "all migrants are thieves/murderer/bombers"
It is positively totalitarian to drag politics into everything. The very meaning of "totalitarian" is that nothing is allowed to remain non-political.
So the only choices are "let's abolish borders and live happily ever after" or "all migrants are killers/thieves/bombers we should build a wall". How diverse and subtile! If you frame problems like that it's easy to think you're in the "good guys" camp
I would find it fortunate and valuable if at least certain human activites stayed out of political culture wars entirely. If, instead of "my side, your side", there simply wasn't any need to think of a side for a moment.
I already deleted my FB and TW account to get rid of incessant political flamewars and I feel aghast that they are now following me to Python release notes of all places.
"If they said something else wouldn't you feel different?"
A key insight is that the poem doesn't contain an abortion-related proclamation that you don't agree with.
Or Terry Davis of Losethos/TempleOS fame https://streamable.com/ty65k
And you know what? Most people are kinda chill about that.
Perhaps there's a reason the anti-abortion guy isn't releasing Python.
But I upvoted your comment because I don't think there's a reason for people to downvote your comment.
It's absolutely acceptable that someone dislikes the poem and wants to express it here.
People confuse the purpose of "downvote". It's not for disagreement. Downvoting buries a comment. We shouldn't bury something just because we disagree with it. That's against one of the most basic human freedom value. If it's just a disagreement, reply to it expressing your view.
Users should vote and comment when they run across something they personally find interesting
Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
And final:
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.I do feel like it can help to break the herd mentality thing of "if it's already downvoted, downvote it more" by making people think about why they've done it
Also like others have said, upvotes are not for agreeing. They are for rewarding higher quality discussion, on topic discussion, etc.
I wouldn't upvote if people were not unfairly downvoting.
This person has the right to express here and to have their expression viewed by others.
If too many people downvote, they're denied this right.
My comment starts with a disagreement, actually.
I said I upvoted because I think it's a fair expression that does not deserve to be buried. Downvotes can bury someone else's comment.