> Arguably his reprimand of Martin is a clear signal that he will never show Rust any favor
His reprimand is a clear signal that he won't tolerate brigading. Marcan was making a pretty blatant attempt at using social pressure to influence decisions.
His reprimand is a clear signal that he won't tolerate brigading. Marcan was making a pretty blatant attempt at using social pressure to influence decisions.
Oh and I got this quote for you:
> Linus Torvalds admonished the group that he did not want to talk about every subsystem supporting Rust at this time; getting support into some of them is sufficient for now. When Airlie asked what would happen when some subsystem blocks progress, Torvalds answered "that's my job".
Source: https://lwn.net/Articles/991062/
Do your job then, Linus!
No, never! That's actually one reason I don't use Mastodon, it's extremely common. Isn't this the guy that blocked HackerNews links to the Asahi Linux homepage because the moderators wouldn't do his bidding?
Yup, that was Hector Martin (marcan) as well.
> Added some clarifications in bold, because Reddit users having enough reading comprehension to understand what Christoph said and why it's exactly* what I described with other words is apparently a Lv.100 impossible challenge boss.*
https://web.archive.org/web/20250206022420/https://social.tr...
> And if you're wondering why you didn't realize this: It's impossible to change people by telling them they're wrong. What does tend to work is explaining different perspectives, so that they can figure it out themselves. And sometimes that's just way too subtle to ever register.
https://chaos.social/@sima/113961285815637787
> when you're that harmful with your calling out, eventually I'm going to be fed up, and you get a live round shot across your bow and if that then causes you to ragequit, because you can't actually deal with the heat you've been dishing out coming back around the corner: fuck off
>or as Dave put it "Being toxic on the right side of an argument is still toxic, [...]"
(that second comment made apparently without any sense of irony re: the first)
The meaning of
> "Being toxic on the right side of an argument is still toxic, [...]"
Is very straightforwards. Toxic behavior is toxic behavior. Sima shouldn't lash out in "toxic" ways even if she thinks she's right.
Otherwise shouldn't Hector be given grace because "his buttons were pushed until he exploded"?
Like, you fundamentally can't have it both ways. Excuses for Sima's comments work for Hector. Condemnations of Hector's comments apply to Sima. Anything else is a double standard.
Sima's responses can be excused. Even Hector's initial frustrations and his reactions to it can be excused. Hector's continued public reactions and escalations, however, are a different story and the reason folks are piling on him.
Granted there are acceptable methods within that, and not acceptable.
Imagine if the discussion would have started with an article like this. Patch probably would be merged already:
Not really. It's one thing to discuss these things directly in the proper channels, namely the mailing list, but it's another thing entirely to make childish, passive-aggressive posts on not-Twitter about how anyone who disagrees with your actions is trying to "sabotage the project" and trying to rally your followers to cancel them on the grounds of "Code of Conduct violations" (once again proving that "Codes of Conduct" are little more than tools to enable cancel culture).
He himself acknowledged the fact that what he did was childish and embarrassing by deleting his entire Mastodon account.
i.e. no one would consider it acceptable for me to go on reddit and start ranting about a Hacker News username, link the thread and argument, and imply either implicitly or explicitly that they should go and join the argument.