https://github.com/babel/babel/issues/8579#issuecomment-4169...
I pine for the times when we could just place a few <script> tags here and there and call it a day.
I'll cherry-pick these comments, which I think have the best signal/flame ratio:
> ...
> this doesn't seem safe anymore. this stack has too many individuals with no oversight in charge
> i really wish the javascript community would start seeing unnecessary tooling as a vulnerability
> this happens so often in this language
IMO you could totally s/the javascript community/everyone/ here, obviously not for universal values of "everyone" but certainly for many.
It definitely inspires awe.
I mean, what am I supposed to make of this? https://github.com/palantir/tslint/issues/4141#issuecomment-...
That did it; I fired off a report to GH, just to be sure. I decided some of my text veered somewhat off-topic, so didn't send the whole thing. Here's what I said, including the offtopic bit after the 2nd "---".
---
Hi! You've probably gotten a few reports about this by this point, so this is just a redundant make-sure.
https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1616 is a pull request that changed the license of a project with 11k stars and which (IIUC) is also a common Babel dependency. The license change basically extended the MIT to say "but this license expressly forbids the following random list of companies from using this" blah blah. (I don't think this person realizes GitHub is owned by Microsoft...) The rationalization was very political.
The whole debacle got reverted fairly quickly by https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1633, and the user was removed from the project. Yay (and whew)!
The license in question can be found in the user in question's repo, https://github.com/jamiebuilds/license, and it currently has 53 stars. I think it only had 20-30 yesterday. :/
Today, I woke up to https://github.com/palantir/tslint/issues/4141#issuecomment-..., which is reasonably inflammatory.
I have no idea what gets done in situations like this, and will watch with great interest. I say this honestly; I found this over at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17872475 while reading a _completely_ unrelated topic, I have no association/involvement/investment in/with the project.
---
There are 1001 interpretations of course. Mine is that this person may be driving themselves into a frenzy of sorts with more and more outlandish actions. I hope I'm wrong! But unfortunately, because of the scale of the internet, the small number of people that are voicing their agreement with this person's views is large enough that it looks like this person has become completely convinced their mental models are accurate and well-founded.
On the one hand, the above is my rationalization for why I thought it might be a good idea to mute this user's account for a few days. I have nothing against them, but thought that maybe the chance to quieten down would mean they might not harm themselves or others, which I definitely would not want to happen.
On the other hand, I've realized that there's nothing to stop this user using email or Slack or whatever else to continue communicating so muting wouldn't have such an isolating (and hopefully calming) effect at all, and (as so often happens with banhammer situations) would instead probably rile them up and make them 1000x worse. So from a "quiet time" standpoint that wouldn't work at all. :(
---
I saw the 2nd block above is relevant but unneeded reading / commentary.