ariabuckles

I mean psychological safety, as in https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/after-years-of-research-go... , or as in "will i face verbal bullying in this space". That is a different type of safety than physical safety, but it's very real. How much people experience not feeling psychologically safe varies widely, though.

I'm a visible minority, and my rights are frequently a part of political debate. In spaces where those debates are allowed to happen, it's often not safe for me to participate. It's a hard feeling to describe or put into words for someone who hasn't experienced others saying that they shouldn't be allowed to do participate in some aspects of society because of a characteristic they can't change.

That's fair. I should have said he's arguing for the right to not teach the history of marginalized people, not that he's arguing that others shouldn't (though he does seem to be arguing that others should be allowed to not teach it).

The question in that survey is different: it asks whether people self-censor because of others. That's pretty different than whether inclusivity is a worthwhile goal, and surveys are notoriously variable based on wording. For example, I would answer yes to that question, I censor myself to avoid offending people (I have done so in this thread, to try to keep it constructive), but I strongly support work to make colleges and workplaces more inclusive places.

And FYI nobody is arguing that any real, material history should not be taught.

This is in the context of his literature courses. There are so many literary authors that aren't white men, that arguing that he should have the right to decide to only teach works from white men (if he deems them to be the best works), does seem to me like arguing that we shouldn't teach the history of marginalized people.

If you only mean non-literary history, the history of black people and LGBTQ people are both very under-taught in United States schools. That's a real thing that some people do want to continue, and argue for. (But this seems a bit outside the topic at hand)

I might be making a jump, because I've followed a lot of these discussions over time.

To my understanding (and as a disclaimer, I advocate strongly for it), "inclusivity" in general means making an environment safe for people of marginalized backgrounds. So to me, his declaration that inclusivity as a value ought to be up for debate seems to indicate he doesn't think it's a top priority that students of marginalized backgrounds feel welcome in his classroom.

Is that a jump? A bit, but it's based on seeing similar situations play out in other areas.

But the choice of curriculum was to my second point: I think students deserve the chance to study a wide variety of history and literary viewpoints, including when feasible some from backgrounds similar to theirs. There has been tons of literature written by black authors, written by women, written by LGBTQ folx. Often times those works have been, in the past, deliberately destroyed (like the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft) or not considered for publication (George Elliot choosing a pseudonym to publish outside romance), which is a significant component to why there are so many more white men authors historically.

If you teach a course where all the literature you choose is from white men, you really limit what history you are teaching, and you can subtly reinforce that others may not be welcome to succeed in literature. Inclusivity asks us to consider those implications and pick some variety of authors--there are many great writers of so many different backgrounds to choose from.

Does the Chicago Review position itself as an academic organization? I'm under the impression it's a literary publication, which seems pretty different than a research publication in my lay eyes.

It's a pretty standard anti-inclusivity rant (although it starts by attempting to position itself as more than such), and then ends with an anecdote/strawman (which is contrary to every notion of inclusivity advocacy that I've seen) to propose that those advocating for inclusivity are the real people who want segregation.

I think what a lot of the commenters are missing is that this article, and statements like "If I must revise my teaching to conform to a popular view of inclusivity that I do not share" have an impact on not just his research, but also sends a message to his students: that he doesn't whether they feel safe being there matters, and that they don't deserve to have representation in studied works.

I know a lot of people (mostly white, mostly men) don't think that's true, but these types of attitudes can easily allow harmful messages to fester in academic classrooms. Just because an idea is controversial doesn't mean it's worthy of debate. The idea that we should want more students to feel welcome in academia, and that we should study history and literature that has largely been ignored (or often, deliberately destroyed) is one such idea to many people.

So I know most of the people on this forum will disagree, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for an organization to say that they don't want their name associated with that.

The position in that article isn't a new or particularly interesting idea: it's been rehashed over and over, and studied, and it's an idea that many people have decided is harmful and they don't want to associate with it or people who continue to spread those ideas.

I probably don't have the eloquence to properly convey these thoughts, but there's a whole field out there that cares deeply about these things and has been working on making them better for, literally, centuries. In tech I often see people frustrated that the public doesn't understand what they're talking about when they discuss technologies (see the 5G conspiracy theories!). If you're interested in understanding why many people think doubling down on these ideas that inclusivity is in contradiction to good research/teaching/whatever, there's a whole field of literature out there to read up on that can help explain that. If you're in the US, one decent starting place is the history of black people in the US, and the history of women in the US. I've heard really good things about this series, for example: http://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/

That's true, but wlroots (sway's compositor) has tried to fill some of that gap: https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots/wiki/Projects-which-use-wl...

It has its own libraries for things like screensharing (xdg-desktop-portal-wlr) that should work across these window-manager-esque desktops.

Both openSUSE and [as of very recently] Fedora use btrfs by default, so btrfs support seems pretty stable these days.

(But as others have pointed out, there are options for using zfs on linux, too)

FYI it looks like this project isn't necessarily dead; another contributor who merged a PR 2 days ago just posted a short update: https://github.com/zloirock/core-js/issues/767#issuecomment-...

Stop spam & panic! I have rules for this repo and i have some time for fixing critical bugs and major updates.

I think the negative effects spread further because they skew the field more. I think women are more likely to avoid FOSS because there are few women, even without knowing who RMS is, than men are likely to go into FOSS because of RMS or someone who was inspired by RMS. That's an assumption on my part, but I think making tech more equitable for all people is a worthy goal in itself, even if that doesn't increase the total number of contributors.

Which things specifically, and in what way?

Saying that we shouldn't call sexual assault "sexual assault", and implying that there's any way a rich, famous, 73-year-old man can "have sex with" (rape) a 17-year-old girl, whom he has extraordinary power over, and who, in in this case was his friend's trafficking victim.

The idea that Minsky's "honour" is in any way more important than harm in what happened to Giuffre perpetuates rape culture. It perpetuates the idea that women are worth less than men, and that it's okay for famous men in CS to rape girls. That emboldens other rapists and makes CS very unwelcoming for rape victims.

Minsky should have known. Implying there's any way what he did was okay creates an unwelcoming environment for women, especially young women and girls at MIT.

(Background and links from https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... )

Honestly, I think we let a lot of mean-spiritedness pass as "comedy", and I think sexist comedy causes a lot of real-world problems.

I would be dollars to doughnuts that the author of that site and the editors of that "wiki" have made or thought worse things at some point, but because they have not reached a certain level of celebrity, there's no dossier on them. It's truly ridiculous to me the amount of effort spent on trying to claw others down.

"With great power, comes great responsibility." When operating in contexts where you have a lot of power, one has to be more careful with their words and actions. If he had voiced that opinion to a friend of his, no one would have complained. But voicing his opinion minimizing rape on a university mailing list has direct negative effects for a lot of people.

Also, some people do listen, apologize, and put in the work to learn.

I accept that inequality exists and perhaps RMS has some awful opinions, but if that's the case then just ignore him.

The problem is that other people don't just ignore him. By ignoring his harmful behaviour, we let his negative impact spread further as others repeat his misogynistic ideas.

A world where everyone is constantly being watched by eachother and reported on is already too authoritarian for me to want to continue living in

I'm sorry and hope you find a way to continue living in this world. And I agree strongly about authoritarian governments.

I don't really think calling out a post on a large mailing list counts as "everyone is constantly being watched by each other" though.

That's an interesting way of framing it—I expect that no, he hasn't directly dissuaded more people than he's encouraged.

But I expect that the second- and third-degree network effects have. MIT has had a huge influence on open source software. Keeping the number of women who contribute to FOSS lower has a snowball effect of discouraging other women from contributing—there are fewer leaders to look up to, and day-to-day misogyny in FOSS spaces goes unchecked more often.

As another commenter pointed out, I also don't think net impact is the bar. But besides that, it's very hard to measure, so I prefer to focus on having positive impacts and limiting/fixing negative impacts. I think the things he said on the CSAIL mailing list continue to contribute to a negative environment for women at MIT.

https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman and https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... are good starting points; I also saw threads about it from women MIT alumns on twitter.

It wasn't just this incident. RMS alienated so many women from open source and free software over the last 30 years, and we've lost all of those potential contributions. He's been getting breaks for 30 years.

That he has also done some very good things isn't a good argument for continuing to tolerate his harmful behaviour after he's been asked to fix it for literally decades, and hasn't.

It’s really good at highly dynamic/interactive apps, such as browser versions of asana or slack, or other things where user actions are small but frequent. If you aren’t doing full page reloads and have a lot of changes, it’s much simpler than managing each individual state change in vanilla javascript.

I personally think React’s component model is much nicer than any templating system I’ve used as it supports composition as a first-class feature.

And if done well, yes you get better performance on the frontend. (If done poorly, you don’t.)

I turned slack into a chrome “shortcut” (which seems to be a PWA minus the service worker), which lets it run in chrome instead of a separate electron instance, but also have a separate app window.

Ive also found having slack be ~another chrome tab, instead of a copy of chrome via electron, to be really nice

I would strongly consider leaving if my manager decreed that I mustn’t use vim and must instead use webstorm/atom/whatever (especially if not in vim mode).

I’ve spent a lot of time setting up my dev environment so it works well for me, and I’m more productive and happy in it.

Style/formatting consistency is one thing, but editor uniformity is an unrelated thing. Yes, it makes collaborating easier, but is that worth the cost of people being less happy or less productive?

I don’t dislike other editors, but I like my setup a lot, and there are, imo, pretty huge switching costs involved in switching to/from vim/emacs and a GUI editor.

She used to get requests to turn her threads into blog posts; now she does not.

Also, she didn’t seem to necessarily want money from them, but somewhat similarly to GPL’d open source projects, doesn’t like scrapers making money off of her work. Plenty of software devs license their work similarly to that as well, and it sounds reasonable to me.

1) I don't think so.

2) They're different because they usually store and distribute her data somewhere other than twitter. If she deletes a thread, that copy persists. If people interact with that copy, she doesn't get to see or manage that. If it's through twitter's API, she can see interaction with her content and block people if they interact abusively. And third party clients generally don't profit off of individual threads.

https://bobbin.herokuapp.com/ is a compiler that is much more like a third party client; it all goes through twitter's API, and in follow ups she said it sounds fine.

There is definitely a use case here, but there is a difference between making threads readable for sharing outside of twitter, and adding ads or reselling content. (And in the original case, I think it's still reasonable for content creators to dislike their work being taken outside where they have less control of it.)

In some of the follow-ups there are some more ethical compilers: https://bobbin.herokuapp.com/ stores nothing and uses twitter's embed functionality to link them together, and https://threader.app/ doesn't monetize content and is working to get better at supporting creators.

She addresses that in the original thread — her twitter threads are specifically for her followers; they're not blog posts.

I ended up creating a homebrew user and giving my personal user sudo access to the homebrew user, which has seemed to work well so far (I may have had to give group read/execute access to all of /usr/local though)

Long (slow) touch on the spacebar to scroll the cursor does work on the SE (at least, it does on mine on iOS 12.1).

But you have to press-and-hold, since there's no force press.

That’s awesome! I’d love to try it; details in an upcoming blog post?

I love what you're doing with Oil! Looking forward to trying the interactive version in the future :)

And yes, network effects are so important—your C++ example is spot on. One recent example that comes to mind is the adoption from python2 to python3, showing just how big a barrier those network effects are to adopting something incompatible.

Oh right, I forgot lua! I love lua and would enjoy that shell (and the metaprogramming available makes it much easier to let unknown commands call programs, which I've tried once).

But I expect for adoption it'll need to be a more widely-used langauge

We can definitely evolve shells more.

Most shells offer a convenient syntax around a lot of (fantastic) utilities that often mirror C libraries (notably posix). When we were working in C, having our shell mirror parts of that at times while being a very dynamic language at other times sounds great.

But we have a much more varied landscape of language and library options now, and many developers haven’t ever used C or posix.

So my thought is: what if we had a shell that was designed to interop with JS (or python, or ideally a language the user knows well), instead of C/posix. What if, instead of having to remember bash’s for loop syntax (or xargs), you could just write .map() and iterate over lines/execute commands that way?

I used moonscript extensively for a project about 6 years ago, and it was fantastic.

I love watching all the things you build, and thanks for all your contributions to the lua ecosystem!

Because it comes standard with most node distributions and is pretty good.

It coming standard means one fewer dependency for everyone on the team to install, which is important on my current team where roughly half are backend- or mobile-only.

I like both yarn and npm, and yarn would have some benefits for us, but probably not enough to counter the extra effort onboarding other devs. npm still has some pain points, but I’ve ran into a few pain points on yarn too. And I think there being multiple projects here has helped the ecosystem.

npm is also doing some neat feature development (npm audit).

Also, the npm team is fantastic, whereas when I adopted yarn early on they dismissed the issue I opened about yarn not working for my setup. They’re a good team, but that lowered my confidence that I’d be able to get through any obstacles while using it. It’s still a fantastic tool though.)