soraminazuki

What's off-putting is publishing a white suprematist course compilation on social media. Calling backlash against that "stalking" is utterly bizarre and detached from any actual meaning of the word.

Before telling someone to "go outside," it's a good idea to make sure that you haven't written an entire paragraph filled with personal attacks using fresh throwaway accounts.

The things I listed are very public, each of which has raised very public concern. I didn't have to "collect" anything because the Neovim team already had a reputation for such things.

You may think the issues being raised are just "political differences." Enough people clearly see it differently. For many, the things DHH, Yarvin, and Thiel stand for crosses many lines. White supremacy, mass surveillance, or the destruction of democratic institutions aren't "fine." There's nothing more "creepier" than the ethnic targeting of people that Palantir enables.

You're holding others to a standard that you yourself haven't adhered to. Please go read the release notes. No mention anywhere that old undo data will be deleted.

https://neovim.io/news/2021/07/

Differences from Vim are also documented, but this issue isn't mentioned there either.

https://neovim.io/doc/user/vim_diff/

Also, what's up with people claiming that the undo files are stored under ~/.cache? That's completely made up. Or that persistent undo doesn't persist edit history, against what the docs say. Utter nonsense.

https://neovim.io/doc/user/undo/#_5.-undo-persistence

Users don't expect their editor to cause data loss after a routine `brew update`. Blaming users for that is unreasonable.

That's completely false and also irrelevant to the point I made. Even if true, it doesn't justify deleting user data in direct conflict with what the docs say.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49869740

In this case, all evidence points to the lead maintainer sympathizing with DHH's views. If his immediate hostility towards someone politely suggesting the removal of DHH's endorsement didn't make his stance clear enough, here's an archive of his previously public YouTube playlist titled "history," full of talks from far right ideologues like Peter Thiel and Curtis Yarvin.

https://archive.is/3cNBr

The relatively small core team has a member giving talks about Neovim at DHH's conference and another one prominently displaying Palantir as their employer in their GitHub profile.

It's clear where their sympathies lie, and that GitHub issue wasn't a one-off coming from a stressful online interaction.

User data shouldn't be silently deleted just because you think they aren't worthy enough. Especially when the name of the feature, persistent undo, and the docs explicitly promise that the edit history will be preserved.

The feature that was broken is called persistent undo. The docs unambiguously state that edit history will be preserved unless Vim/Neovim detects that the "undo file is no longer synchronized with the file it was written for."

https://neovim.io/doc/user/undo/#_5.-undo-persistence

So even putting aside the Vim/Neovim interoperability angle, that contract was broken. Undo files created by old versions of Neovim will be deleted by more recent versions.

The interoperability issue can't be ignored either. Neovim was touted as a drop-in Vim replacement, and that needs to be taken into account when considering how changes affect users.

So many Neovim users have started by reusing their existing vimrc. I'm sure many still have ~/.config/nvim/init.vim symlinked to ~/.vimrc to this very day. With Vim, persistent undo is opt-in. Vim users who cared enough to opt in are highly likely to have explicitly set the path for undo files too. That's because Vim defaults it to the same directory as the file being edited, which clutters the filesystem. As a result, there are many users who shares undo files between Vim and Neovim simply because they reused their vimrc, not because they made the conscious choice to do so.

That's some weird technicality that has nothing to do with the issue while also being completely false.

https://github.com/neovim/neovim/blob/fc3f0041fbe01c96f38224...

The feature that was broken is called persistent undo. The feature was inherited from Vim. In case it's not obvious from the name, nowhere does it state in the docs for persistent undo that data may be deleted at any time.

https://neovim.io/doc/user/undo/#persistent-undo

That Neovim changed the default storage path for undo files is completely irrelevant to whether the contract for persistence should be broken.

Yes

- https://web.archive.org/web/20241026031947/http://bullenweg....

- https://web.archive.org/web/20241026031947/http://bullenweg....

Mullenweg's troubling politics or the lawsuits against him are far from the main reason people should stop using WordPress. It's only been 2 years since he abused his control over the WordPress plugin infrastructure to wreak havoc among users of hosting providers that he had petty arguments with.

https://web.archive.org/web/20241026031947/http://bullenweg....

It's ironic that this kind of blatant user harm gets brushed off as "political," when many on this forum defending him do so for politics.

These companies are hammering on the "if we don't develop this super dangerous weapon, others will" BS so hard. Yet, it's telling that they continue to develop the supposedly fatal weapon, not its countermeasures.

The situation is far more serious than what the title suggests. The MAGA regime is pursuing criminal prosecution against AI critics.

> the administration declared war on protestors and opponents of AI, threatening “criminal liability” if they “further the propaganda or other goals of a foreign power.”

This is literally the go-to playbook of Russia and China for silencing critics. Label every critic a foreign agent and use state violence to silence them.

- https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/01/russia-new-restrictions-...

- https://apnews.com/article/china-hong-kong-national-security...

If you're being intellectually honest, you would explain which parts of the words I quoted is ambiguous instead of questioning my integrity with vague hypotheticals.

The last time the US has declared war is 1942.

That aside, you know exactly what my point is. Just because there's a military conflict doesn't mean it's legal to kill anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances.

When has the US respected jurisdictions? The US for years have sent drones to foreign jurisdictions and executed people outside of any combat zone with no due process whatsoever. And according to news reports, some of the people killed were guilty by being in close physical proximity to a target. This is an affront to the rule of law, to say the least.

His only condition for going back to the states is a fair trial, in which he can make his case in front of a jury. Something that the constitution guarantees, but is "prohibited" under the Espionage Act. He's not asking for anything close to a pardon, just basic due process. Yet the government denies him of that basic right.

He's got more moral integrity than all of us combined. But nice high horse you have there.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/461578-snowden-ultimate-go...

The tweet clearly mentions that Kling "stands with @dhh" citing backlash against his "racist and transphobic views." You called that "extremely reasonable" and you should own it.

Statistical fetish? That's one hell of a way to turn your lack of proof into an ad hominem attack.

If people are being fired for being white and male, then the number of unemployed white men increases compared to other demographics. It's that simple.

None of that makes any sense whatsoever. In your hypothetical scenario where "the numbers balance out," that's by definition indiscriminate termination. You can't discriminate without it showing up in the numbers because that's how math works.

It's also offensive that you accuse me of fallaciously bringing up an unrelated story. You said the "tweets all seem extremely reasonable," including the one where Kling viciously defended DHH's call for ethnic cleansing in London. There is no "backstory" here.

Fixing government and taxing the rich is the only solution that addresses the core of the issue. Charities can't close wealth gaps, because they lack the power to enforce laws that ensure fair labor and trade practices. Charities can't stop the healthcare industry from bankrupting sick or injured people, because that too requires enforcing the law. Charities can't stop concentration camps.

Charities do have a place in society and they can do enormous good, but can't compensate for a poor government.

Frankly, the notion that government is fundamentally ineffective and only the private sector can fix things is billionaire propaganda. Billionaires undermine government so they can exploit working-class people with fewer constraints. Then they'd use charity to launder their reputation while pushing their own agenda.

Deriding calls for fair taxes and claiming charities will fix things is wishful thinking at best.

Debating the meaning of words in order to avoid owning what you explicitly said or supported whenever it's inconvenient should be condemned. What kind of person would be scared by that over someone supporting an advocate of the ethnic cleansing of London?

Where is the data that shows there are a disproportionate number of white men among the unemployed population? Without that data, this kind of rhetoric can only be seen as a pretext for actual discrimination.

Also, you think jumping to support someone who got backlash for claiming that only a third of the London population (aka white people) are "native" to the city and the rest should be driven out of their homes is "extremely reasonable"? It boggles my mind that people are lining up to say how normal this is. It's anything but.

Or maybe, just maybe, a system that doesn't create massive concentration of wealth won't try to divert people's focus by pitting people against each other and building concentration camps. Governments aren't fundamentally wasteful. In fact, an effective government is an absolute requirement for functioning healthcare, fair wages, consumer protection, and actual public safety that protects all people equally.

This isn't to diminish all the good things charities have done, but charities are fundamentally band-aid solutions to a dysfunctional society. Leaving welfare at the mercy of wealthy individuals as the wealth gap keeps getting bigger and bigger is a losing strategy. It shouldn't be the state of things people should be aiming for.

You can see the same dynamic playing out in this very thread too.

What's your idea of a smart responsible adult then? Is it continuing to push on a red herring after being called out thrice? Putting words into someone's mouth instead of honestly engaging with what's being actually said? Attacking your opponent for someone else's actions out of desperation? Throwing a tantrum and resorting to crude insults when challenged? All of this just to defend a white suprematist? Sheesh.

By all means keep doing what you're doing. Just don't act surprised when people don't look up to you and take your words with respect.

Despite it being so common, I'm still bewildered by people wearing their racism like a badge of honor, while at the same time trying to discredit the term so that no action can ever be described as such. Like, pick one, not both.

Nitpicking on a rhetorical exaggeration is a form of fallacy, not a serious rebuttal. Throwing in words like "accountability" while doing so makes it look even more unserious. But I'm sure a smart person who couldn't resist the urge to say "stupid" 3 times in one reply can figure that out for themselves.

> You display a common lack of reading comprehension.

Nah, my reading comprehension is fine. If anything, you should go look up the definition for "compare" before you start grading other people.

> There’s nothing racist about it

If comparing people to wolves that should be killed based on their race isn't racist for you, what is?

> “brown” and “white” are words that you read into the text

No, it's very clear what DHH means. The Romanis (paraphrasing since DHH only referred to them by a slur) vs. the "native" Danish, the "native Brits" vs. the other 2/3 of the London population. DHH is discriminating based on skin color, that's an unambiguous fact.

> so that you could be angry

I'm not angry, just appalled at you and DHH's racism. I'm not the one angrily hurling crude insults and incoherent rants repeatedly.

> You are just upset about it because you’re not “right wing”.

Huh? Yes, I am appalled by someone who literally compared brown people to wolves that should be shot for the protection of the "human" population, which is to mean, white people. That's an ideology that neither deserves respect nor equal protection under the law.

> It doesn’t even matter if Omarchy was some kind of sekret “right–wing influence campaign” as you say

I didn't claim it was "sekret." On the contrary, it's playing out in the open for everyone to see. Wealthy companies and individuals are pouring obscene amounts of money into a fund centered around someone's personal dotfiles with hotkeys for launching a bunch of commercial software. DHH claims to support other projects with that money, where most of the actual work is done, but projects that have any shred of conscience are avoiding their money like the plague. In effect, it's funding projects that don't have an issue with ethnic cleansing. Digital Ocean even withdrew funding from projects that didn't take DHH money, effectively punishing them for their stance. If something quacks like a duck, it's a duck. That fund is, for all intents and purposes, a right wing influence campaign.

I know you won't be changing your behavior over this, but despite your attempt at putting together a debate-me-bro response, you couldn't even resist the urge to resort to crude name-calling. And no, adding "useful" before "idiot" doesn't hide your petty emotions. It's embarrassing.

> And yeah, you are missing the point.

I think I'm pretty on point if someone insists on focusing on trivial technicalities while ignoring the bigger picture.