coffeemaniac

To expand on your explanation -- not only did kneeling not work, it was roundly mocked and derided by even progressives.

It turns out, Americans pay attention when you start smashing property and taking flatscreen TVs.

In America right now there are ongoing protests and riots over the conduct of domestic police departments, specifically their proclivity toward extrajudicial execution and battery of black people in the streets. Damaging police property including their cars and precincts is a powerful (if legally risky) expression of that anger.

I miss i3 so much. But I've succumbed to laziness and have been using my various macbooks. Agree that it's a huge productivity gain, moreso than any font improvements.

> Who will make future contracts with such company? Would you outsource your project delivery to a company where employees decide whether your project/office/political stand is good or bad?

I'd gladly prefer to contract with a company that's not known for supporting agencies running concentration camps. This political moment will pass, but twenty years from now after this history chapters have been written on ICE, we still have to live with the choices we made.

> Who will risk employing a person who rebels against board members of a company and causes financial damages over broken contract?

Plenty of companies. Our skill set is very much in demand.

> But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity, especially for essentially political reasons, is lunacy. It'd attract extreme negative attention from the rest of the government, and great fear from all paying customers that an internet mob could separate them from their code at any time.

Why is this lunacy? If government entities suddenly are under the impression that they'll have a difficult time finding business partners if they're consistently caught doing human rights violations.. seems like a win-win. If anything it would attract negative attention for the next company willing to do business with them.

> We should absolutely be lobbying hard for changes to immigration law, the restrictions placed on ICE, and justice for their wrongdoings.

We're doing that too. There's no reason only one form of action should be followed.

> But I can't see how this helps improve immigration

It helps by making ICE expend their resources on finding new businesses to provide hosting services they need, or if they can't find any, rolling their own.

I see that some commenters are suggesting that github should use its position to influence ICE and maybe that's contributing to some confusion. This was never about improving ICE -- the goal is to cripple and dismantle them.