ironmagma

They at least contain exactly who you worked for and the time period as well as possibly your title. None of that is provided in the WARN act.

Once again, an employment check is not like a WARN act filing. I want to know for a given startup exactly who was fired and why, when, etc.

It’s one thing to be laid off from a startup in general. Another entirely to be laid off right now.

The number of recent layoffs is everyone’s concern right now because of how hard it will be for you to find a job afterward. Layoffs always were going on, and always will for startups, but the days of turning down job offers due to small uncertainties are mostly paused or gone at this point. The demand crunch is very real.

I worked at startups for 7 years. Interestingly, WARN acts are mostly irrelevant for startups because they are only triggered when a certain number of people are about to be laid off (100 or more, I believe). When an employer accesses your employment record, they can see very detailed information. A WARN act filing is neither comprehensive nor detailed.

Glassdoor itself encourages users not to post anything factual, only opinion-based, because of the legal consequences [1]. Glassdoor is more like a Google business review than a background check anyway.

Also your estimation of HN users is probably out of date with the current state of the employment market.

[1] https://help.glassdoor.com/s/article/Tips-on-writing-a-revie...

It kind of ignores the core asymmetry of capitalism, that those with the capital are the ones with the power. Nobody can do a background check on a company to see who they laid off or fired before they work there.

That sounds like the beginning of a story that ends with an RCE.

It's okay. Sometimes when you click the Unsubscribe link you have to enter your email (log in), and sometimes you have to fill out a form, which may or may not be serviceable. There is room for dark patterns here, and dark patterns are used. We're hardly out of the woods with Unsubscribe.

It may be shit, but it's freedom-flavored shit. The best kind.

Well, we also can’t get to Arctic data centers without trying and I’d argue that’s far more likely to be achievable of a goal.

The market humbles all.

A lot easier to see than how uncomfy chairs would do the same.

> Do you really think it is accurate to say Gitea LTD is merely gatekeeping and not actually doing a ton of work to steer and maintain this project?

Absolutely not, and I never made that claim.

> How much was the bounty, who funded it, and who receives it?

I happen to have some inside knowledge here, that at least Allspice and Copia provided parts of the bounty. Some of that is mentioned in the thread but the transparency could be better.

> Do you have evidence otherwise?

That was the thrust of the submission. I tried to link the fragment but I don't think Hacker News allows that and erased it: "Unfortunately, they have already merged a version of this code into the private gitea repo and are charging $$ for it. So Gitea Ltd. (owners group) has no incentive to review and merge this in an open source repo, even though the open source community has funded and developed it."

As for conflicts of interest, perhaps. Who knows the actual extent of it? Posting here is intended a matter of visibility rather than activism; that's why I'm so surprised that the thread was closed on grounds of brigading, since that was neither the intended nor the actual effect.

I’m actually neither. I’m a big fan of forks. If something isn’t working out well, it should be very easy to create a fork and switch to the fork (i.e. forks should be lightweight just like branches).

We can’t rely on everyone to follow our schedules, so if there’s a desire we should take the lead on getting it done instead of dragging each other down. As such, I didn’t post this to shame anyone, mostly to provide an onus for switching to a fork. (Or I should say, another onus, since there are already a few reasons to not contribute to Gitea, mostly coming down to size of the project and inertia preventing refactors or redesigns.)

If it’s good enough to merge into the enterprise branch, it’s good enough to merge into the community branch.

It may be expensive; that’s why there was a community-funded bounty placed on it.

If the complaint is that Gitea is too complex to maintain for free, then great, start a company around it to fund a private fork. But then you shouldn’t be allowed to stop the community from merging their own crap in their own fork that they maintain and care about. Since Gitea LTD is the gatekeeper of both repos, that is the conflict of interest.

Didn’t xz get backdoored through extreme cunning and an exhausted solo maintainer?

He may be, but also contributes quite heavily to the open source repo and sponsors bounties. It may not absolve him of profit motive, but at least earns the right to critique the Gitea administration.

There’s nothing preventing it from being dual-contributed.

I agree the name isn’t great. Very awkward to pronounce using English phonetics.

But anecdotally, I have seen a lot less red tape contributing there and a lot less bickering than on Gitea, which is perhaps too big for its britches. Just a lot of discussion and very hard to get things done on the Gitea side.

Brigading? Well I definitely didn’t intend that, although I also don’t see anyone from here having commented on the thread so I don’t see how that is reality.

Stall may have been a better word, although this PR has been crawling along for over a year now, with little response from the maintainers. If something is neglected for long enough it’s topologically equivalent to blocking it.

Good suggestion, updated the title. Thanks!

In the link is a comment describing how Gitea LTD is stalling on a pull request and instead merged it into their private repo which they charge money for.

This is a PR that was funded with a bounty with the idea of contributing to open source.

Now is a great time to switch to Forgejo :-)

Considering they can’t really even make IPv6 happen, that seems like a likely scenario.

> I appealed to this decision, and all I got back was a standardized automated message that this decision is final.

This is the part that should be made illegal.

Yes, and so really what we are seeing is just the effects of a high quality bar. If you want high-quality software, you do more iterations. And iterations produce breaking changes.

Man, these frontend people are constantly churning through dependencies, a new framework every year. Don't reinvent the wheel, just be like backend folks and pick a dependency and stick with it. Oh wait...

I was talking with a coworker recently who was asking the question of why Ruby wasn’t the data science language of choice. I am still not sure the answer. Why not? Ruby seems like it would be great for math.

I tried to install it recently but the latest release of the disk image was from over 2 years ago, which has a problem that if the network craps out while you’re installing, the whole installation fails. They added retry logic but the released disk image doesn’t contain it.

Then I tried to build it from source, but there were a few dozen issues with po4a, the translations system. Every GNU project is cursed, I swear.

We believe in stateless, declarative solutions at QUINE. Soon we will be open sourcing our latest creation.

Especially if that portion is in the official nonprofit associated with the language.

People always avoid death, up until they don’t.

“We are sorry. We really messed up with this deployment. In fact, we’ve questioned whether we should be alive, or whether we should have even been born at all. Heck, maybe none of this should exist.”

The only way I can imagine one-upping the detractors at this point.