The developer literally said he’s not opposed to gender-neutral language, he just didn’t want to accept a random non-technical contribution by somenoe who had never interacted with the project before.
It takes no effort to refuse a PR without making a comment that even the basement dwellers of /r/conservative would have realized would be sensitive and politically charged.
The developer literally said he’s not opposed to gender-neutral language
It isn’t really important what the developer claims; if they don’t act according to their claims, then there’s no point. Even I know how to build sandcastles in the air.
Hey, I’m coming from a heavily utilitarian view, so please allow for that in my question.
Let’s say there is a pro coder who is amazing at debugging, but is incredibly antisemitic. They have little to no interactions with colleagues and are keeping the hate to the appropriate boards (X, I believe it’s called nowadays). Should we contract his work and apply it where applicable?
The issue I have with Ladybird is that the remarks were made *by one of the “lead” developers". In a huge project with thousands of developers, it is inevitable that some of my code is made by a person with unsavory views. However, I dislike the fact that such a person is in charge of the project.
I have no problems with the code itself. Code is code. But it is moreso the leadership of the Ladybird Foundation that bothers me. I’d like for one of the options to come true:
Andreas apologizes for his actions and acknowlege the recklessness of his words
The Ladybird Foundation has a change in representation
The project is forked and maintained by a different corporation
Personally, I’m excited about Servo. Not only due to the leadership, but because it is made Rust. As we all know, Rust has a carcinized logo that gives you the legal right to spam rocket (🚀) emotes.
… and are keeping the hate to the appropriate boards (X, I believe it’s called nowadays). Should we contract his work and apply it where applicable?
There is no “appropriate board” for hate speech, whether it’s antisemitism, transphobia, or anything else. If you wouldn’t want someone to be a Nazi in your office, why would you pay them if you know they’re a Nazi somewhere else? Is it fine as long as it’s someone else’s problem?
On another level, if you had to pay a developer, and you have reason to think they might donate the money you give them to an antisemitic cause, or directly use it to fund their own antisemitism, would you still want to give them that money? Or maybe look elsewhere, even if it means getting something slightly worse?
I still feel that if they are doing a good job and not harrassing people at work, they deserve the money. The way you put it makes me feel like I am talking about funding the third reich.
Even if they are chanelling all the funds into an active genocidal army, I stand to argue the problem is not with me paying the developer. There are definitely nuances we can get into, like the ‘enabler’ character from the 12 steps lore. I am very much not dying on this hill, I might be wrong.
I see the thin line I am dancing on in this argument. Having bigot opinions go unchallenged on large platforms leads to problems.
I wouldn’t want to work with someone who can barely wait to kill me and take over the company because of something I was born with as soon he gets the green light from society. But is this what we are talking about?
We can’t let the hate take over, but I don’t see the solution in cutting off blood circulation to an uncooperating limb. One can argue that nazism is a gangrenous infection, but I personally think it’s a symptom of great discontent and a narrow perspective. Maybe I’m just slow to draw the same conclusions everyone else has from the paradox of tolerance.
i think he’s referring to mozilla accepting money from google to let google be the default search engine for over 20 years, which 5 years into that deal, google started using any search made through not chrome to pipeline people to chrome
Thank you for commenting Something that isnt incomprehensible. I dont feel I agree with them Saying that’s Why google still has a monopoly. I feel the blame largely falls on Mozilla’s poor management and lack of doing anything new.
Considering I have no fucking idea where to even start with what youre referring to, I think I’ll just be happy instead of entertaining an asshole. Blocked.
Mozilla has existed for over 20 years and Chromium still has a monopoly.
Yes, and that’s precisely why we need Ladybird, no matter what pronouns it uses for users.
I prioritize basic human decency over browser engine monopolies, but everyone has their own priorities.
The developer literally said he’s not opposed to gender-neutral language, he just didn’t want to accept a random non-technical contribution by somenoe who had never interacted with the project before.
It takes no effort to refuse a PR without making a comment that even the basement dwellers of /r/conservative would have realized would be sensitive and politically charged.
It isn’t really important what the developer claims; if they don’t act according to their claims, then there’s no point. Even I know how to build sandcastles in the air.
Hey, I’m coming from a heavily utilitarian view, so please allow for that in my question.
Let’s say there is a pro coder who is amazing at debugging, but is incredibly antisemitic. They have little to no interactions with colleagues and are keeping the hate to the appropriate boards (X, I believe it’s called nowadays). Should we contract his work and apply it where applicable?
The issue I have with Ladybird is that the remarks were made *by one of the “lead” developers". In a huge project with thousands of developers, it is inevitable that some of my code is made by a person with unsavory views. However, I dislike the fact that such a person is in charge of the project.
I have no problems with the code itself. Code is code. But it is moreso the leadership of the Ladybird Foundation that bothers me. I’d like for one of the options to come true:
Personally, I’m excited about Servo. Not only due to the leadership, but because it is made Rust. As we all know, Rust has a carcinized logo that gives you the legal right to spam rocket (🚀) emotes.
There is no “appropriate board” for hate speech, whether it’s antisemitism, transphobia, or anything else. If you wouldn’t want someone to be a Nazi in your office, why would you pay them if you know they’re a Nazi somewhere else? Is it fine as long as it’s someone else’s problem?
On another level, if you had to pay a developer, and you have reason to think they might donate the money you give them to an antisemitic cause, or directly use it to fund their own antisemitism, would you still want to give them that money? Or maybe look elsewhere, even if it means getting something slightly worse?
I still feel that if they are doing a good job and not harrassing people at work, they deserve the money. The way you put it makes me feel like I am talking about funding the third reich.
Even if they are chanelling all the funds into an active genocidal army, I stand to argue the problem is not with me paying the developer. There are definitely nuances we can get into, like the ‘enabler’ character from the 12 steps lore. I am very much not dying on this hill, I might be wrong.
I see the thin line I am dancing on in this argument. Having bigot opinions go unchallenged on large platforms leads to problems.
I wouldn’t want to work with someone who can barely wait to kill me and take over the company because of something I was born with as soon he gets the green light from society. But is this what we are talking about?
We can’t let the hate take over, but I don’t see the solution in cutting off blood circulation to an uncooperating limb. One can argue that nazism is a gangrenous infection, but I personally think it’s a symptom of great discontent and a narrow perspective. Maybe I’m just slow to draw the same conclusions everyone else has from the paradox of tolerance.
I’d say that Chromium has a monopoly thanks to Mozilla.
Explain
i think he’s referring to mozilla accepting money from google to let google be the default search engine for over 20 years, which 5 years into that deal, google started using any search made through not chrome to pipeline people to chrome
Thank you for commenting Something that isnt incomprehensible. I dont feel I agree with them Saying that’s Why google still has a monopoly. I feel the blame largely falls on Mozilla’s poor management and lack of doing anything new.
No. Research for yourself or just blame Google and be happy.
Considering I have no fucking idea where to even start with what youre referring to, I think I’ll just be happy instead of entertaining an asshole. Blocked.