_svoh

US, yes, and I'm in a particularly bad region for tech, so I'm searching across multiple states and also across the country. I'm currently employed as a remote worker and it's killing me. It gives me very few opportunities to network. I did high school online and graduated college online due to the pandemic, so my network is already super suffering as it is.

Do you have substantive critique? Because the fellow you're responding to is giving substance to his criticism, the parent comment is giving substance, the article is giving substance, and whether GEB has substance is apparently up for debate. If the person you're replying to is deadset on proving the parent right, you are dead set on proving nothing. Please tell us what you disagree with, and the particulars of why, or maybe leave the discussion to the adults.

Perhaps, but then again, I find that typically only people who find those terms odious would care enough to quote that particular passage from the github and then refuse to elaborate on their own personal opinion of it. I also find that people who engage in such hit and run tactics are, typically, not very courageous in their own beliefs, or they'd be full chested about it.

"None the wiser" is indeed an appropriate username! Please, tell us, by your snark I can assume you're most displeased with this collection of adjectives. But which ones in particular and why?

Do hippies frighten you because they represent a more egalitarian and prosperous ideology than your narrow minded brain can conceive of?

Do communists make you quake in your boots because you don't believe you could get on in a society where you might not be able to solve all of your problems with money? indeed, imagine if you might have to rely upon people liking you; I also fear for your ability to get on.

Is it the "drug fueled" portion, because you perhaps feel some right to tell other consenting adults (whom probably know much better about their bodies and their own lives than you do about yours) what to do on their spare time?

Or are you waking up to the fact that we, as a society, are becoming more secular[0], and thus you see the advance of atheism as an attack against the institution of your personal sky daddy?

And these are all reasonable things to think of you, since you only wave vaguely at a collection of adjectives while expressing some nebulous form of disdain. Perhaps either clarify the nature of your disagreement, or continue to persist in the shadow of intellectual doubt and fear you appear to be laboring under... which is a disease very common to people who appear to believe as you do.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20240123000719/https://www.nytim...

Cool, who are you?

Cringe is trying to push your beliefs on other people because sky daddy commands you to. I'm not reading anything more on Christianity or catholicism, not after my early youth was squandered by moralizing hypocrites. Religious trauma is a very real phenomenon, and I'd argue that it's on the rise. Christians need to take a serious look inward and try to figure out why it is their religion of peace leaves such a wake of devastated souls and relationships. I actually saw two Christian parents, wholly bought into the fertility cult aspect, encourage their daughter to not seek cancer treatment because it might render her infertile. This is not an isolated attitude.

Also, why should it matter to me if they're doing it because they think they're commanded to by some omnipotent figure? I regularly disregard the rantings of schizophrenics, why should I buy into one delusion and not another? Why should I respect Christian beliefs more than other delusions?

lmfao you literally keep posting about your preferred cult. Hacker News is probably not the best place for your pro-Mormon crusade.

Evan wants to control the technology. That's a management decision that makes it unfit for purpose. This is a legitimate criticism that had long ranging impacts. I have seen no reason, no commitment from the management side, to believe this won't happen again. It is worth bringing up when there are similar alternatives without such a spotted history of lockdown and control issues from management. I know nothing about the fellow. This is not personal.

When Linus says no, he rejects features and pull requests. That's fine. That's responsibly shepherding your implementation.

That's not what Elm does. They lock down the compiler so only Elm devs can modify internals, which would be equivalent to Linus trying to prevent people from modifying the kernel.

They really don't like people forking their repo, which would be equivalent to Linus getting mad at people making derivative kernels (because it would "split the community.")

It's not just a matter of saying "no," it's trying to control what devs do to an UNREASONABLE degree.

I simply don't think locking down the compiler so only blessed Elm devs can modify internals was necessary. I don't think the flack given to people forking the repo was necessary. Say no to pull requests, fine. Don't try to control the technology.

That's really reductive and biased against us, the potential user base of Elm that decided not to engage. Why is it that we don't like being told "no," as opposed to the Elm leadership and Elm community not liking being told "this isn't a 100% solution for me so I'd like to modify it"?

Obviously Elm is his passion project, that's fine. But nobody who locks down their compiler on a supposedly "open source" project can actually seriously expect others to engage with that in good faith.

Furthermore, the absolute state of just trying to modify Elm to be more fit for purpose is horrendous. Every time I see a parallel implementation or a fork, the author has to bend over backward with platitudes to placate the Elm masses and ensure them that this project isn't trying to "split the community," which is a nonsense idea to start with imo.

It feels cultish, on top of a project that is actively hostile to people who want to use it any way other than how the BDFL has mandated its usage. If you want to say the problem is with the users, that's fine, but that's exactly the attitude keeping me from ever engaging. I personally think the problem is with the people who want such fine control over their technology and community, as opposed to understanding that they can really only shepherd their implementation. That's about as far as their reach rightfully extends.

EDIT: also, the fact that they aggressively lock down their compiler and have such hostility to anyone working in parallel is imo the definition of "holding it back"

Eh, it doesn't seem like character assassination. Dude chose his management style. That makes his project unfit for purpose for certain people. Those people are allowed to make that determination and state as such.

I remember when the Elm team first decided to lock down the Elm compiler, so that only the team in charge had special privileged access to modify it. I thought, "wow, this looks like a bunch of people who don't want to collaborate, who want to take their ball and tell others how to play with it, really putting the 'dictator' in BDFL." and you know what? that's fine. I don't harbor anything against them as people. But that left a permanently bad taste in my mouth and I'm unlikely to ever trust that group or a project they're managing.

I get glee seeing scammers taking Ls for sure.

I feel weird going to church. I get the idea but I'm not religious at all. I'm not even open to the possibility. I'd feel scummy.

Also I have body image issues and do not enjoy working out around other people.

It's crazy, almost like people don't trust corporations to be reasonable when they have such vague abuses of the law to escape into. Maybe we shouldn't have to trust corporations not to spy on us in spaces that carry reasonable expectations of privacy. Maybe we should regulate their greedy data-grubbing into the ground so we don't even have to speculate, and so the miserable people who work at these corporations are stymied from even attempting it. What a splendid utopian ideal.

Allow me to also be real simple: many millions or billions of dollars have been scammed away from regular people who mistakenly trusted cryptocurrency markets.

I am not saying crypto should be illegal. I am saying it's a stupid idea for a currency and it's stupid for people to trust it.

If people want to go gamble tons of money, then that's fine, but it is not an investment. No real value is being produced. It is a zero-sum gambling ring that shifts money from one pocket to anoth er. It is musical chairs with bearer bonds.

It enshrines institutional power via truly braindead deflationary policies.

Unless you're an early mover, or pump a ton of money into it later, you essentially have no capability of engaging in the space as anything more than a victim.

Just because you like something doesn't make it useful.

Do you say the same about cash? I am a fan of some molecules the government has erroneously classified as having "no medical use," and I tend to acquire these via cash routes. So cash also enables crime. Do you think we should transition to a fully networked currency that has perfect auditability for all transactions?

I'm sincerely asking. That appears to me the endpoint of the argument you make here. I might be wrong in my interpretation or conclusion, so please do correct any inaccuracies or leaps you find in my post.

I am not a fan of cryptocurrency, because I think it is stupid. But I am a fan of (actually) anonymous and privacy preserving currencies. So I can continue to not harm or victimize others, but acquire the molecules that make me the most functional.

This is certainly an ideal that libertarians hold, though I do not claim myself or my views as being particularly libertarian.

It has so far compromised multiple DMVs, some US federal energy entities, British Airways, some Canadian provincial governments, and more