1,535 karma · joined June 2, 2013
PROTIP: it's actually microbes & other unsanitary conditions, and you can perfectly make "weird" stuff clean (& tasty). Go read a book, lol.
Apparently TCM is quite popular in Switzerland, I have no idea why...
In this case it does sound like people initially were very nice and tried to give the author very polite suggestions on improvement, and it was only after the author being extremely dismissive[1], not admitting to his own flaws, not wanting to learn from others, and abusing his own power in shutting down valid discussion, that things turned nasty.
The fact that the author deleted many of the linked issues e.g. https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-net/issues/83 really feels like he is playing the victim here and taking everyone for a ride, denying his own responsibility in all this drama that's unfolded.
Yes a community should be open and forgiving, but blindly forgiving someone who doesn't even admit their own mistakes, who doesn't even understand what they are being forgiven for, is naive and also will result in community destruction.
I also don't buy the "if you don't like it just don't use it" argument. If it's actively dangerous and you know this, and you know that other people don't know this, you do have a responsibility to (politely) inform others about it. Simplying "not using it" is plain negligence.
[1] "the patch is boring", LOL WTF I would never have even come up with something this insulting even when I wanted to actively piss someone off, kudos for imaginativity
Not sure why people ITT still trying to nitpick and stick with the supposition that the chant is violent and primitive.
If you're referring to having multiple roots, there are two solutions:
(a) define your 3-way-merge primitive (the non-recursive version) to support merging two states against an imaginary "zero" that acts as the single root. So in the counter version you can imagine that everything "actually" starts from 0.
(b) arrange your application so there are never multiple roots. In some cases this not really a constraint, usually one single person starts a document and it doesn't make sense to merge something else in later. In some other cases (group chats, tree histories like git) this is probably not acceptable and you will need (a). But in the examples I just gave, a reasonable (a) is fairly straightforward to think of.
https://github.com/fredrik-johansson/arb/issues/194 was the original exhibitor of buggy behaviour
However a lot of western media and commenters conflate this by adding their own propaganda twists into their message, either surreptitiously (being anti-Chinese and using "freedom" as an excuse to attack China) or perhaps innocently without realising it (ignorantly, thinking their are really about "freedom" and not realising their own prejudices). This unnecessarily inflames the situation and a more balanced message would have worked better without triggering the sensitivities of very nationalist people.
> The Uyghurs are not ethnically Chinese but live in China’s so-called autonomous Xinjiang region. The region’s name suggests the Uyghurs have autonomy and self-governance.
"Chinese" is not an ethnicity, you probably meant "Han Chinese" as the ethnicity. Saying that Uyghurs "are not Chinese" is like saying Northern Irish people "are not British". Of course this is going to piss people off, pro-Chinese Uyghurs included. Indeed many of the Github comments are about accusations to split China, and of course if you go into Northern Ireland and talk about how all those people are "not British" you will understandably get the same sort of accusation, that you are trying to split up a nation. Indeed the pro-British Northern Irish call themselves the "unionists", the very word the direct opposite meaning to "split".
The naming of the region as "autonomous" is also historical and unrelated to the current surveillance and oppression (which is appalling) but to say this in your second paragraph makes it sound like there is some conspiratorial connection. The region in fact does have more legal autonomy than the other provinces of China.
This post, and many unrelated others in general, are talking about their own experiences. They don't seek to deny other people's experiences; and being slightly too general in their wording so that there might be an implication that their experiences apply to everyone, is a mistake that everyone makes and is an intrinsic part of natural everyday language. Pointing this out, and seeing others point it out, gets really tedious after a while, not to say uneducational and uninformative.
Personally, I've definitely been through a similar thing that this article describes. Remote work is indeed very draining indeed for the reasons described. If you have some ways to make it work for you, just say and state them, there is no need to say "the article is wrong / too general, actually it's only true when specific circumstances [X, Y and Z] apply that didn't apply to me", this adds nothing to the discussion and makes it sound like you're denying other people's experiences.
This resulted in lots of internal memes mocking these UX designers.
Totally agree with everything this article says, fuck arrogant UX designers coming into my office and rearranging my workspace, fuck you coming into my house and rearranging my furniture.
(If you attempt to justify this by "it's not your product it's the company's", you are really missing the point, and you shouldn't be a UX designer. Human emotions don't care about legal structures.)
> Woulda thought they used SVN primarily since they pull from Debian
Again, overloading of the term "constant time" causes pointless misunderstanding and arguments. Your statement here is wrong.
In complexity theory the term "constant time" does indeed mean the running time is bounded even with unbounded input (e.g. goes to infinity), although it could vary within this bound.
In cryptography the term "constant time" is sometimes used to mean a different concept, that the operation actually takes constant non-varying time, so that an attacker can't exploit this as a side channel to figure out the input values.
The paper seems to be using the latter meaning.
Good on these guys, I hope they build a licensing model or some other thing that can stand up to Amazon. I still consider SSPL to be "free software" very much within the ideals that movement, regardless of what the OSI says.
> As I said, that is my opinion, but I think it's true. I would be interested to hear of a counter-example.
Debian is 1000+ developers with a constitution and voting system.
This isn't on the same scale as "enforce their will on the world", and nowhere near US-levels of "enforce their will". (Not justifying this sort of action however.)
My point is you and the earlier poster are happy to extrapolate small events into big ones in a way that doesn't match the historical record. The officials of the Chinese government are not stupid and can't go too far from public opinion, which is generally more principled that you (and other US-centric "analysers") give them credit for, being too focused on the laws and ignoring many "facts on the ground". (Not implying rule-of-law is a bad thing.)
> being German,
Germany has been under US influence since 1945, so my saying your analysis is US-centric is not too far off the mark. There are differences and also similarities.
Of course what I said is an oversimplification. It's meant to directly make you question your deep underlying assumptions, and your own oversimplifications. The government has a lot of power on paper both now and historically. Yet despite this, rebellions have still occurred regularly, and this core central power did not historically cause China to go and colonise other countries committing atrocities there. Perhaps something is missing from your own US-centric legalist analysis?
China has overthrown harsh rulers many more times than the US has, even taking into account the latter's short and young history. The last time was in 1912, and very plausibly arguably 1949 too. (The Nationalists were pretty bad, objectively speaking.)
s/trader/programmer/g also true
If you fundamentally disagree with their values, find a new place to live? Hey, at least it's possible to move to a democratic country, but a democratic corporation? Not that many of them around.