tmp_throwaway_q

Sorry, no, stalking people online is downright off-putting to anyone from the real world. Having non-political endorsements from people you (and, if you believe it, I) deeply dislike doesn't warrant this kind of treatment. You've simply worked yourself into a froth to justify doing it to someone you really don't know. What right have you to be 'concerned' about the Youtube videos someone watches in their private life? This is normal only to the social-media-mob-socialized.

This sort of runaway justification is a very common pattern from the self-righteous, across the political spectrum. It's why I need to use a throwaway to talk about these issues, even with people I ultimately agree with. Consider carefully how few hearts you've changed with this strategy.

So, yeah, I reiterate: go outside! Smell the roses! I'll follow my own advice, at this point.

I'm not gonna gather 'evidence' for or against what some guy who happens to maintain a text editor I use thinks about the issues of the day. It's just creepy behavior, and a huge violation of personal boundaries. Why do you think this is an acceptable thing to do? Go outside.

Regardless, the material you've posted doesn't indicate much about him to me beyond that we have political differences, which is okay. That's literally fine. It's definitely not enough to condemn someone as a Nazi sympathizer.

It's also hard to stay cool and agree with the mob dogpiling you over (tbh) a triviality. Anyone who's had to have difficult conversations in the real world knows that. I'm not going to expect people to respond in the best way to such things (easy to project this expectation when you're an anonymous name in the crowd, though).

Gotta be honest, this seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. Yeah, DHH is an awful person. His endorsement was removed from the page pretty quickly, but of course not fast enough to avoid the social media mob handing down their verdict upon the thankless maintainers. I sympathize with the Neovim developer in that thread, the driveby Github commenters with seemingly no other involvement in the project are some of the least well-socialized people alive.

Yeah, this hasn't been a problem since forever (or at least I haven't noticed). They had to break the undo file format a while ago to actually work correctly for byte-level buffer change events (very important for tree sitter and other plugins listening for buffer changes). The undo file format is versioned, too, so it's not just YOLO'd; Neovim has since forever returned an error saying there's a version incompatibility. The outrage here doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The original author of this post (on Mastodon) appears to have a bone to pick with Neovim since it's "platforming white supremacists"? I couldn't figure out what this meant. Some sort of internet drama I guess.