Hacker News Reader

Comment by gustavus | Hacker News Reader

I care far far far more about technical excellence and capability when it comes to security critical pieces of software like 1Password and as long as they demonstrate they are capable then I could care less if the founder voted Rasputin and worships Morgoth.

I don't care if the guy who made my hammer is a Pastifarian I care how well the hammer hammers, I don't care if my accountant likes to dress up as a skunk and go to conventions demanding people address him by Sir Reginald Stinkington as long as he does a good job at my taxes.

In this case it seems the concern is that the company donated to an OS project that is headed by a guy whom you don't like.... That just seems like there are plenty of other problems to address in the world.

View on HN

To push this further to the logical extreme, so you're saying that if the founder was to say they are using their profits to directly fund a group who's sole purpose is to wipe out a particular ethic group that they believe has no right to exist, you'll continue your support because the product is technically excellent?

I think your analogy goes the wrong way. If you buy bananas from a grocery store, along the entire chain of people that were involved in selling you that banana there could be all kinds of sick fucks. You'd never know because you've only met the store clerk and you don't really know that person either. I also don't know why anyone would care, except maybe the manager.

Your situation would describe something like Panda antivirus. They're known for funding scientology. I'd rather not buy from them, but honestly I also don't know if the competitors are worse. Perhaps that Norton guy has flipped swastikas all over his basement and that Kaspersky dude also runs an illicit brothel in south-west Asia on the side. Who knows.

Read the OP comment again. They expressly said they only care that the tool works; nothing else matters to them. So they will buy bananas from a grocery store even if they know that the owner is sourcing those bananas from... "sick fucks" and there's another grocery store across the street, also stocking bananas but sourced from an ethical supplier, but maybe those bananas are usually a bit more ripe than they prefer.

No, that's your interpretation. OP merely gave examples of acceptable (mis)conduct. If you want to know where the boundary sits, go ask OP.

I, for one, also wouldn't know why it matters what the toolmaker voted or to what organisation he donated to. Voting is considered everyones own private business. That's because some people can't stand it if others disagree with their choice, but democracy doesn't work that way. If people are coerced by peer pressure to tell what they voted and it's contentious, they could be inclined to cast a dishonest vote.

Would you care if your accountant liked to sit outside a high school and watch teenage girls with binoculars? What if a local shop owner was known to harass female employees? Everybody has a line somewhere.

Harassing people is very different from writing an article on the internet that complains about people shitting in front of metro stations.

In a world where capital is the only vote that counts it makes sense to vote with your money. That said, everyone should read what DHH actually said rather than this blog post before you decide on this one in particular.

On a liberal-ness scale from 1 to 10 I'm an 11, and even I can't imagine that many folks would read what DHH actually said and jump to the conclusions that these people did. This is not a Godwins law case... The dude just wants some homeless people to stop shitting in the bushes in public.

Either some people have poor literacy skills, or they just want to be mad.

It would have been fine if he did so. But he decided to make it a der Sturmer like blog post instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com