[flagged]
Would think twice about linking that one in polite company.
The term "glowy" has taken on a life of its own despite the original context. The image itself is from it's 4chan days. Probably poor taste to include a version with Terry's full quote.
But I can certainly squint at other people when they spread Terry's quotes and memes.
Someone can use language you disagree with but still have a point if you dig past it. I also happen to personally think it's important to engage with this sort of thinker at least sometimes
Insisting on polite, formal language can be a type of bigotry too you know. It's historically pretty classist, and lately also indicates a sort of neuronormative bigotry.
Idk, some food for thought
No it's not, it's enforcing the norms of civil discourse. If they have some kind of actual underlying issue that causes this and it's legit beyond their control - then sure, go the extra mile and try to meet them where they are.
If on the other hand, it's some annoying person who likes ruffling feathers on purpose - I really think they ought to be ostracized for such behaviour.
Short of something like the recent event with the chap with Tourette's saying awful things at the BAFTA awards, or Terry Davis with schizophrenia saying outlandish stuff, there aren't many scenarios where I'd be willing to give someone a pass on this.
If you have the ability to choose not to use the n-word, and you're not in a group that can use it self-referentially among your peers, and you use it anyway, then you're an asshole and I don't really care to hear what else you have to say. I feel pretty OK with that blanket assessment.
"There are some scenarios where you might want to give people a pass for reasons outside their control" is literally the only point I was trying to make
So I guess we are in violent agreement?
Edit: also, you will never actually discover which people you should give the benefit of the doubt if you categorically dismiss anyone who uses language you dislike
You don't see how that is exclusionary to people who struggle with norms?
I guess if you're born neurodivergent and can't handle social norms, you don't deserve any kind of grace. You can't ever contribute anything worthwhile or meaningful if you don't live up to all of society's polite norms. Good to know
Never change Hacker News
I used to go to Japan, quite often, and watched Americans violating societal norms, all the time. The Japanese were usually fairly good at not lashing back, but I could see them visibly restraining themselves, sometimes. Over the course of about a decade, I learned to at least respect their ways. I found the Germans to be less accepting of annoying Americans (and I was one). I learned a lot quicker, there.
I know that many folks think that self-diagnosing as "on the spectrum" is considered some kind of "get out of jail asshole" card, but that's just an urban myth. If you're an asshole, you'll usually be treated like one; no matter the reason.
This mirrors my experience too. I think my bitterness about that is on full display in this thread
In my experience, it's been worth it.
Growing up overseas, in many different cultures, I think, has helped me with this.
I wish you luck.
Or someone bipolar who gets kind of erratic and can say really out of character stuff when they are going through a manic episode?
Or someone with tourettes that might say something that pops in their head unexpectedly?
Sure thing about ADHD. You're right that people with the executive function disorder don't tend to blurt wild social faux pas. But there are also people with social function disorders who might.
It doesn't necessarily mean they are terrible people
I'd already explicitly excluded people with Tourette's and other major challenges, but you knew that, so now I presume you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Have a nice day.
Like seriously.
> This is an insultingly narrow definition of "neurodivergent"?
No! I'm trying to define it as a broader scope of behaviors than just "my friends with ADHD" like you did!
What a frustrating interaction. I hope you're pleased with yourself
Does your neuro-divergence also make it hard to read the exact point that I made, or are you just trying to be difficult?
No. There's a huge, eye-wateringly vast gap between impolite, informal language and racial slurs. I happen to personally think it's completely unimportant to engage with someone actively calling someone else the n-word.
That's not classist, and in no way neuronormative bigotry, unless we're classifying racism and generalized bastardry as a mental illness.
I'm neurodivergent (diagnosed) and under the care of two mental health professionals and I'll just say I don't have tolerance for people using slurs.
As much as I appreciated the point being made in that article, once someone pointed out the image and I went and read it, I won't ever choose to share it with anyone because that image is discrediting. The writing had the intended effect on me and at the same time I'd be ashamed to link to it.
Yes, I'm a bigot against bigotry. It's unacceptable.
The whole thing reeks of 14 year old turned 38 year old smelly edgelord nonsense, not something I would post, that's for sure.
The corpus of work on this exact topic is so vast, and so overwhelmingly bereft of distracting racial slurs, that I think we can safely discard this contribution.
My default is almost always MIT though.
It doesn't even really need to be India, it could just as well be stolen by someone in your country. The vast majority of open source developers don't have the time to invest into copyright protection. Trying to actually enforce your license is signing up for a years-long nightmare of wasting your time, energy, and money dealing with the legal system for, in the end, no real value to yourself. If you release something as open source, you pretty much need to be ready to accept that your license is meaningless when it meets contact with reality.
This is all the more true with LLMs existing now, which are freely used to launder copyright licenses. Maybe in the past GPL would've made Microsoft or Google, at least, think twice about using your code, but now their developers will prompt GPT to reimplement your code.
You can in-fact file a copyright claim against them if they fail to provide the source and attribution.
These specific actions are definitely not part of the DMCA. In fact, it's basically the reverse. Unless you hire a lawyer to represent you, you must dox yourself to file a DMCA claim, which will involve handing over your name, address, and phone number to the platform committing the infringement against you, with the DMCA complaint requiring swearing under penalty of perjury that you are not falsifying any details.
> else you can [sue] the app store for not doing that.
This is, I think, the fantasy belief of someone who has never engaged with the legal system. You submit a notice of copyright infringement. They ignore it. Now what? Are you, as an independent developer, prepared to spend years of your life fighting to have it taken offline, out of pure spite, because you aren't going to get anything near the effort you put in? Even if you "win", you still lose, because it's just not worth it.
This is assuming you're even aware of the infringement. It was pure luck that I happened to discover the copyright infringement, in my case. It would be very easy for somebody to never discover that their game was re-labelled with a new name in a foreign app store. And once aware of it, actually trying to enforce my copyright quickly disabused me of the notion that copyright law could ever benefit individuals in any meaningful way.
It also seems divorced from the practice of intentional cuckoldry. Any "bulls" would know that a more apt analogue would put Amazon and Delve and others as the cucks (expending energy to create arrangements where they can sit back and watch others do the work), and the open source contributors as the 'bulls' or 'cuckqueans' (the ones who actually do the work, but they do it because they find it enjoyable).
Luckily, software licenses aren't really so difficult to understand, and it behooves us to understand them in specifics. So I don't think it serves an illustrative purpose to insist on an analogy where writing software is like being physically intimate with someone elses spouse. I think the author just intends to signal political affiliation through the soft-shibboleth of Being the Type of Guy to Say Cuck A Lot.
It's a /g/ meme, from where luke presumably got it.
agreed, I got strong edgelord vibes off that. completely distracted from any message the poster wanted to convey.