thaneross

Up to version 1.3 the covenant didn't have a section limiting scope. 1.4 introduced it along with a loophole:

> Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.

Eg, if you say something the maintainers don't like on your personal Twitter, all they need to say is "you're representing the project in a bad light" and it's fair game to ban you.

Then in version 2.0 the text you quote appears, but changes

> This Code of Conduct applies within all project spaces

to

> This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces

but never defines what community spaces are. Is your personal Twitter account a community space? Well, once again that's up to the maintainers to decide. It's the same loophole as 1.4 but more cleverly disguised.

I can't help but notice the contrast with the popular, Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct, which makes it abundantly clear its aim to enforce a set of beliefs on its contributors, with no boundaries between professional and personal life.

Is it democratic in that people vote for a solution? Or is it everyone talks about it and consensus is built around a solution? Because while the second has its issues I would take it over the alternatives any day.

It's almost like there might be better alternatives than command-and-control structures when building software.

> Society is not obligated to force people to let you [...] into their businesses

Courts have routinely disagreed with you here.

To be clear, I'm not claiming you can't do these things on native AWS, but rather there are wide choice of high-quality projects ready to go that target k8s.

  - Countless Helm charts
  - Development tools like Telepresence
  - Many GUIs / terminal UIs
  - CI/CD tools like Argo
  - Logging and monitoring tools
  - Chaos engineering tools
  - Security and compliance tools
  - Service meshes / request tracing
  - Operators for self-healing services
  - Resource provisioning
  - etc...

A compelling reason is the large ecosystem of tooling that runs on k8s. Practically anything you want to do has a well maintained open source project ready to go.

The dichotomy is pretty stark sometimes on this site between the excellent conversations about technology and the SV capitalists musing about how to get richer.

To add to this point, even if you season your Rust code liberally with Arc<Mutex<>>, the libraries you use probably don't, and you'll still get most of the performance benefits.

Yes, a regular for loop is a bit faster at iterating over a large list of elements than foreach in Javascript, but why on earth would you care about that kind of optimization minutia in a coding interview?

The question you're asking involves 10k * 3 * 30 = 900,000 data points. If a candidate wants to simply loop over all of them multiple times a second, I'd say that's a much bigger problem.

That sounds like a pretty siloed way to work. Conversations with the people involved is much high bandwidth and full-duplex which increases the odds of understanding the underlying problem and building what people actually want.

This is an excellent point that I hadn't properly considered before. The term "non-binary" invokes a strawman that it proceeds to tear down. The notion is if you don't accept the idea that gender is an arbitrary social construction, you must therefore believe people fall into rigid, simplistic categories.

Funnily enough, the writers of ST:TNG had this idea too. The main computer of the Enterprise-D was huge (9 decks tall) and generated a subspace field so that optical processing ran faster than light.

A: No, we don't do paid on-call! That part of the job is unpaid...

> we can try our best as individuals to promote welcoming environments

I think what's often missed is that this creates an unwelcoming environment for minorities who don't share your ideology.

> you underestimate the amount of abuse and harassment that certain groups of people face

While I don't think this point is necessarily wrong, surely we can agree that in recent years there has been expansion of what is considered abuse. As with any push to change ideas, not everyone is on-board.

Is being subjected to a micro-aggression abuse? 20 years ago you'd only get a "yes" from a few activists / academics. Today you'll find a vocal (and growing) minority claiming it is a form of violence.

We don't all agree on the new rules, and CoCs are a method of making everyone follow them.

As another non-American I feel similarly which supports the hypothesis that CoCs are primary political instruments.

That's a lousy standard. It's fine for me to be denied equality if there isn't a unified movement advocating for a particular solution?

https://polyadvocacy.ca/

I obviously can't summarize the all changes to family law and I'm not a lawyer, but here are a few ideas:

- When 2 or more people get married, a new legal entity of the marriage is created. It has members, property and an estate. It pays taxes

- Divorce is from the perspective of a person leaving the marriage and leaves with 1/n of the marital property

- Reform child legitimacy laws (legitimacy doesn't matter, the state advocates for the well-being of the child)

- Rights normally reserved for a spouse are extended to all spouses (such as hospital visitation)

- Mandate that policies that extend to a spouse (such as life insurance) get changed to cover all spouses

And a bunch more stuff I'm sure I haven't thought about. Here's the thing though; I know I'm so incredibly unlikely to see it happen in my lifetime that it feels like a waste of time to get into the details of changing the law. Instead I spend my time on is making my relationships work and giving support to others about how to have happy and healthy non-monogamous relationships.

Yes, I do support it. I don't see the issue of changing the definition and legal framework to include multiple partners, which may be added or divorced over time.

Trying to rally a mob against someone in the hope of getting them fired is _absolutely_ a use of force. It was being justified as an act of self-defence (my words) because the OP felt they were being harmed.

As for poly marriage, yes, there's no attempts to make it even more illegal because it's taboo to the point that nobody brings it up except when conservatives make slippery slope arguments (which gives you an idea of how unpopular it is). Kind of like there was no DOMA in the 1970's; gay marriage was unthinkable.

Let me give an alternate perspective. I'm gay and polyamorous which means I can't get married to my partners. The vast majority of people are currently opposed to changing the definition of marriage to include my chosen family. Should I take the position that I am being deprived of my human rights and thus anyone not on my side is doing me harm?

The problem is, when you frame this in terms of self defence, practically any action is justifiable.

I'm a believer that we need to change hearts and minds to make progress; social change isn't a war that can be won by force.

That doesn't match my experience. People are afraid to speak openly to me and that does me a disservice.

I can tell you, mentioning I'm in a polyamorous relationship with my coworkers feels _less safe_ today then it did 5 years ago. People before didn't really understand (they still don't) but I usually encountered an attitude of live-and-let-live tolerance. Today I get 3 reactions: conservatives who are afraid to say anything so they avoid me, progressives who treat me like some kind of novelty, and the rest who don't care. I don't consider this progress.

As a beginner to Rust I'm surprised by this. Given the Rust compiler is able to figure out the lifetimes in the recursive case, you'd think the lifetimes within the tail-optimized loop would be same. Doesn't the lexical scoping of the loop's body have the equivalent lifecycle of a recursive call (drop at the end of the loop vs the end of the function)?

I agree there's good reason to be skeptical about claims that certain language is inherently harmful, but let's be charitable and believe people are genuinely offended.

I have 2 questions: 1. Does offence in this case constitute harm? 2. What percentage of the population needs to be offended before it should be taken seriously? 51%? 10%? A single person? Perhaps the majority of people in an affected group?

Does anyone else find it telling that there wasn't a "none of the above" option in that vote?

I can't think of any. Process attempts to reduce humans into instruction following machines. Sometimes this is necessary (think safety checklists) but most of the time it squanders the very thing that makes humans special: the ability to make predictions and respond to changing circumstances.

It seems to me much of what is considered "professional" is the result of corporations trying to control employee behaviour to avoid liability. I hope we can do better than that.

As a marginalized person who has both been physically assaulted for my identity as well as been subjected to hate & discrimination, let me be clear that equivocation between words and violence is not helpful.