1,086 karma · joined March 1, 2025
This sort of thinking sends us straight onto a slippery slope. If you asked any of these trillion-dollar companies why they feel the need to exploit our data, they would insist it is all for our benefit, to provide better recommendations and personalize our experience, and other such nonsense. It is much the same logic that was used to justify Clippy's wasteful behavior at the time.
The fact is that these trillion-dollar companies now and Clippy then were exploiting our resources (data now, CPU then) to push features down our throat that they decided were "beneficial" or "helpful" for us.
The only redeeming feature of Clippy was that you could disable it easily. Can't do that with the trillion dollar companies.
It may not seem that way now, since even visiting a simple blog page consumes far more processing power than an entire Windows boot sequence from that era and no one thinks twice about it. But when Clippy was introduced, processors were slow, resources were tight and squandering CPU time for no good reason brought it close to being considered outright harmful.
This is all the more sad for me because among all the spam, many high effort articles get posted to /newest but many don't get the upvotes. These shallow, feel-good articles always get the upvotes. I guess it takes more time to read and appreciate a high effort article. So I understand why this happens. But ...
Incorrect. Nobody is denigrating the goals of the initiative. All criticism I see is directed at the choice of the mascot only.
You know... people can love an initiative and criticize its mascot at the same time. The two are not incompatible.
> Clippy would have been evil but that's the point, it wasn't back then.
I was around when Clippy was introduced. It was universally hated. If anything, Clippy would be a good mascot for intrusive AI tools and services that harvest our data without regard for our privacy, not least because Clippy constantly monitored user actions just so that it could interrupt them.
If we want a mascot for tools that respect our data, it should definitely be something far less evil than Clippy.
Yet when I look at the conversation itself, I cannot find anything that seems directly hostile towards them:
I do not see personal attacks from either side. I see a normal debate with some snark now and then, which is hardly unusual in online discussions. I may be missing something that happened out of view, but from what is available, the tone does not appear toxic.
It looks like a normal debate, very prolonged, but a normal debate until the author gets banned: https://lobste.rs/~7u026ne9se I don't understand why they get banned though. I see no bad interaction from either side.
A moderator rebukes the OP for starting a fight: https://lobste.rs/s/gkpmli#c_mejg0v I don't understand this either. Both sides were equally forceful in the debate. But the debate was always civil. Yet only one side receives a rebuke. The whole incident seems strange to me.
More weirdness:
But you chose to reply to my outdated message although at the time you were replying my message said that I wasn't sure whether the CoC applies or not.
I didn't say that. This is what I said -
"But yeah... CoC may apply to him too. So you've got a good point. I don't know if the CoC applies to their website. If you know more and if it does, a violation of CoC should be reported on their issue tracker."
Emphasis: "may", "I don't know if", "If you know more".
Not sure it does. Right there in the same link you posted:
This document contains the rules that govern these spaces only:
The ziglang organization on Codeberg
#zig IRC channel on Libera.chat
Zig project development Zulip chatI'm not confused by anything. That was a rhetorical question. I continue to respond because there are other things that I care about and I have things to say about that. I don't care about what style or tone or words Andrew choses on their website. But I care about people trying to be morality police and discouraging someone blogging on their own website from writing rudely and writing politically incorrectly. So that's why I continue to respond.
> Thanks for finally admitting this, I guess? Not sure why you needed to add all the extra argumentation about it, but at least you got there eventually.
Credit where credit is due. If you make good points I agree with, I'll certainly say that.
> Not sure why you needed to add all the extra argumentation about it, but at least you got there eventually.
Because there are other points of yours I don't agree with.
Must a person always 100% agree or 100% disagree? Can a person not 10% agree and 90% disagree? The latter is happening here.
I don't care much about the language used. I neither intend to defend it nor criticize it. But I do care about people trying to be morality police. That's why I am spending multiple comments here.
> It feels like there’s a reason you refuse to define your line in the sand.
Yes, the reason is that my line applies to myself. My line doesn't apply to you. It doesn't apply to Andrew. So my line, which is a personal and private matter for me, isn't something I want to share here. It is irrelevant when talking about the words Andrew chose on his website. That's the reason. It's a simple reason. Don't overthink it!
Yes, he did. It is funny. I don't know why we need to talk endlessly about it. If you are bothered so much by this violation, file an official report on their issue tracker.
> The point is that everyone has different lines for what they consider to be "acceptable" or not. That is exactly the reason why codes of conduct exist
When I said I decline to share my lines and boundaries here, I meant just that. I didn't mean that I need a lecture on CoC from you. I know what CoCs are and why they exist. Thank you very much. I am not morality police. Neither are you.
My morality applies to myself. Andrew's morality applies to himself. But yeah... CoC may apply to him too. So you've got a good point. I don't know if the CoC applies to their website. If you know more and if it does, a violation of CoC should be reported on their issue tracker. If this is such an important topic for you, please do report the violation to them. That'd be fair.
I'd like to be treated this way if I am doing really stupid things. If I am doing the kind of stupid things GitHub is doing, I'd rather someone call me out as a monkey so that I know I f-ed up.
I know calling "monkey" is not professional but my expectation of professional treatment stops at my office with my colleagues and at a few other places. I don't expect the whole world to be professional to me. I can take some bloke on the internet calling me a monkey if that helps me to introspect and make things right.
If they're nice about it and choose professional words to tell me I'm being stupid, that's great. But if they cannot and they call me "monkey", I'll take that too. I'd rather have the feedback in whatever words they can muster than not have the feedback at all.
I do but I decline to share it here. I'm not going to shift this thread from what the author is doing on their website to my personal beliefs and boundaries!
All I am saying is it is their project, their blog. They can be however much rude they want to be on their website. It's their website, their lines and their boundaries. Where I set my boundaries has no bearing on what Andrew should write on their website.
If Andrew alienates people by his writing, it's his decision, his action, his consequences that he has to deal with. How does it matter where I draw the line?
I can't speak for others. But if I am screwing up as badly as GitHub is, I'd rather someone calls me a loser and monkey for it. It's like someone splashing ice cold water on my face and showing me the reality. It's going to be very uncomfortable, yes. But I'll learn from it and try not to screw up so badly again. I find this kind of natural outburst refreshing really.
Which is absolutely fine. It's their project, their website. If they can't be colorful on their own website, where else can they be! If it turns off some people, I'm sure the author is aware of the risk and happy with that risk.
I, for one, find this kind of colorful language refreshing. Everyone trying to be politically correct makes the internet a dull place.
Ad hominem happens when someone undermines the argument based on the speaker's background. Here they are not undermining any argument. They're just name calling. This is name calling, not ad hominem.
That is well known and I am sure the author is aware of it. The problem they are describing is not whether HTML is technically allowed inside Markdown. It's that when you are writing Markdown, you are writing Markdown, not HTML, and that comes with some problems.
> It is perfectly capable of what the author claims it isn't.
In theory, yes. In practice, using Markdown becomes much less appealing once you start dropping raw HTML all over the place. The whole point of choosing Markdown is that you do not want to spend your time typing <p>, <a>, <li> and the rest. You want to write in Markdown, with only occasional HTML when absolutely necessary.
That is exactly where the author's complaints become relevant. If the solution to Markdown's limitations is routinely switching to HTML, then the argument becomes circular. If you are expected to write HTML to address the author's complaints, why bother with Markdown at all? If the answer is just "write HTML", then you may as well skip Markdown in the first place.
All I'm saying is that if you water the problem down into something trivial and boring, the solution will be trivial and boring too. No surprise there. The other answers here are more complicated because they solve the canonical FizzBuzz problem, not the boring version of it that is trivial to solve without conditionals.
1
2
fizz
4
buzz
fizz
Just because it didn't happen to you does not mean that it doesn't happen to others. You can see a few anecdotes in this thread itself where people commented that they did get attacked for pissing people off. Like check this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45968219
Yes. Welcome to the internet! I don't just think someone would do this. I've seen these things happen. It just takes one person to be pissed off who has got nothing better to do and a few bucks to spare to buy DDoS as a service.
It is obvious those two are very different situations. I'm not sure I understand your point. Yeah, nobody will be bothered by a short 15 minute DDoS attack. I prolly wouldn't even notice it unless I'm actively checking the logs. Sure, nobody is going to be bothered by that. But what if someone's DDoSing persistently with a purpose? Maybe they're just pissed at you.
My point is... a sustained DDoS attack will just make your host drop you. So one situation directly leads to another and you are forced to deal with both situations, like it or not.
Have you experienced a targeted DDoS attack on your personal site? I have. I too had this attitude like yours when I didn't know how nasty targeted DDoS attacks can get.
If you're not too worried about someone DDoSing your personal site, then your host taking your website down and then you having to run circles around their support staff to bring back the website up again, then I guess, you don't have a problem. It's nice that you don't care. (Honestly speaking. Not being sarcastic at all.)
Personally, I wouldn't mind DDoS on my personal site if the problem was just the DDoS. Unfortunately, mostly it isn't. A DDoS has other repercussions which I don't want to deal with exactly because it's a personal site. I just don't want to spend time with customer support staff to find out if and when I can bring my website back up again. DDoS on my personal website by itself isn't all that bad for me. But having to deal with the fallout is a pain in the neck.
I see many people saying this but be honest, do you know this for sure or are you just guessing? I've experienced DDoS so I know I'm not just guessing when I say that if your website gets DDoSed your hosting service would just take your website down for good. Then good luck running circles around their support staff to bring your website back up again. Maybe it won't kill your business but it'll surely create a lot of bad PR when your customers find out how you let a simple DDoS attack spiral out of control so bad that your host is refusing to run your website anymore.
If this is their core argument for not using CDN, then this post sounds like a terribly bad advice. Hopes and prayers do not make a valid security strategy. Appropriate controls and defenses do. The author seems to be completely missing that it takes only a few bucks to buy DDoS as a service. Sometimes people do DDoS your small blog because some random stranger didn't like something you said somewhere online. Speaking from experience. Very much the reason I'm posting this with a throwaway account. If your website receives DDoS, your hosts will take down your server. Nobody wants to be in this situation even if for a personal, small blog.