Like the author's group of friends, mine has stopped throwing LAN parties. I think our last ones were around early WoW time.
However, large LAN parties are far from being dead. There's Dreamhack and the like, and my alma mater runs a huge 2000+ players LAN event every year (https://lanets.ca/). It seems like it's become more of a grand event, as opposed to the couple times a year gathering with a handful of friends.
As a guy in his late 20s, it's really interesting to see how gaming has evolved and democratized itself during the past couple decades.
Good to note that self hosting Gitlab (CE in my case) is a breeze. I'm pretty bad at infra and sysadmin stuff and I've been maintaining an instance for a group of friends for about a year now with no issue.
Installation is easy, upgrading (even between major versions) is completely painless, you get integration with Gitlab Continuous Integration, the Community Edition doesn't feel artificially gimped to get you to switch to a paid plan, Gitlab is great at fixing security issues. I also love the UX and it's not missing any feature in my experience compared to GitHub/Bitbucket.
I'm not affiliated with Gitlab in any way but it's honestly one of the rare pieces of software I only have praise for.
I just want to say (since you're here and this is a post about Gitlab) that your product is awesome.
A few friends and I spun up our own instance of the CE about a week ago because we weren't too happy about Github's stance. It was incredibly easy to set up and it works flawlessly on a small 1 core, 2Gb VM.
A little off topic but can you share the effect the recent Github stuff has had for Gitlab? Did you get a lot more traffic?
I see you conveniently forgot to label the y-axis. If you don't want to tell us the scale, could you at least mention what the unit is? Daily actives on GL.com?
Regardless, this is majorly exciting and this growth is a tremendous leap for the open source community.
>Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual descriptions like “hug” or “backrub”) without consent or after a request to stop
>Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding:
‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you”
Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
>Although this list cannot be exhaustive, we explicitly honor diversity in age, gender, gender identity or expression, culture, ethnicity, language, national origin, political beliefs, profession, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and technical ability. We will not tolerate discrimination based on any of the protected characteristics above, including participants with disabilities.
People actually do that? Just thinking about a stranger writing that to me makes me a bit creeped out, like a minor version of how Merkel reacted when Bush gave her a quick backrub.
> I had never heard the term "cissexual" before. I don't really see why it's needed.
Because people who aren't transsexual exist, and it sometimes is useful to refer to the group of people sharing that characteristic, and its more convenient to do so by a term that doesn't involve the negation of another trait.
Saying "we're going to protect some groups but not others" is absolutely abhorrent. Either forbid all racism or allow everything (and just to make this clear: I'm very much on the side of forbidding all racism, no matter what race it targets), but saying "we'll allow hate speech about one race but we'll remove hate speech about another" is the literal definition of endorsing racism.
And then the bit about "tone"; they're basically saying that they explicitly allow blatant incivility. Now, that wouldn't be so bad if they had a "we never remove anything" policy, but they clearly don't. If they're going to remove bad content, then they need to have a policy of "keep a civil tongue in your mouth or get it cut out".
Also, as a trans girl, I don't tolerate anyone in my life saying "die cis scum" or #KillAllMen, and I call that shit out.
(edit: so, this apparently applies only to the projects GitHub maintains themselves and isn't a site-wide thing, so it's not as bad as I've feared, but I still don't like it)
It does prohibit all racism. ("We will not tolerate discrimination based on any of the protected characteristics above [including race]".)
It's impossible and unreasonable to forbid all discrimination. It deliberately discriminates against racists, for example.
"Blatant incivility" would not be welcoming, so would be counter to the stated goals. The statement is instead that 'Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial' is not an actionable complaint.
For example, if you believe otherwise then - and to use an example of a tone argument that I do not mean to direct to you - "Why don't you calm down and we can discuss this like adults?" This is a tone argument which implicitly and incorrectly assumes that only someone who is emotionally upset (and likely unjustifiably so) would have made that sort of statement.
I believe the overall policy is along the lines of "keep a civil tongue .." that you propose, though with more details about what is considered "civil".
I'm sorry you're being down voted. I'm thankful that someone this CoC is supposed to protect is speaking out against it because it discriminates against other people.
Feminism is sexism. As is MensRights. Any group that puts one sex above or "equal" (think Animal Farm version of equal) is sexist. Same also applies to race. Race shouldn't matter, period.
Much more significant to me than the Code of Conduct stuff (which just continues internal stuff like the purge of their meritocracy rug) is their precipitous disappearing of a repository that described itself as "X for retards", and without notice, its forks where all the current development was. See more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9966118 and some discussion here WRT their recent $240M round of investment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9971946
I am aware of the mechanics of Google. In the context of the obvious stab of the parent to GitHub introducing a CoC and recommending to support GitLab was funny though, especially when throwing those terms in the ring.
Do you have any plans to revise that in order to preempt the sorts of problems that users are having with Github? I would imagine that most of the new users are expecting an environment there which isn't r-------.
That CoC is for GitLab the project. Not for GitLab.com. Right now we handle GitLab.com issues on a case by case basis. So far it was only Gamergate but I'm sure more will come up in the future. Gamergate opted to run their own GitLab instance http://gitgud.io/users/sign_in
Just want to say thank you for creating the free, open tools needed to host even more controversial stuff like this. Even if you're afraid to host it yourself, you've truly created a good for the world at large.
> The article also doesn't mention how GPL is a show-stopper at some companies where we are building proprietary solutions.
> Oracle, IBM, Sony, Apple, Microsoft, Boeing all are monetized empires that profit not just from binary blobs, but from providing a superior product. Also, being the patent holder is lucrative.
I'm really not a huge fan of the GPL but you have to realize those are by design. To a supporter of the license, that's actually a plus.
> How do you intend on running a business and feeding your employees, let alone making investors happy following the virtues of GPL? Consulting and support only goes so far.
If the GPL doesn't fit your business plan, just don't use it. Do you see Open-Source projects using leaked closed-source code (or complaining that they can't do so)? No one is preventing companies from rewriting equivalent code and the authors had the right to select whatever terms they wanted when they created their project. It's their creative output after all.
We also have lives to live - limited resources, money, and days on Earth.
It's more intricate that the way you view it outside the world of academics, non-profits and eurozone states with social benefits that give you the freetime to do that.
If you're open to knowing more, I could elaborate.
Thanks for the link. The exhibits really paint an appalling portrait of the guy. He's acting like an insecure 14 year old.
I don't want to downplay the situation but I feel like it's your responsibility as an adult to disengage from situations like this faster than she did. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess but the whole situation seems to have been really mishandled (and that's a feeling I'm getting from a court complaint from her side). Again, I'm not saying she asked for it or anything, just that pursuing an ongoing relationship might not have been the best idea.
In any case, that seems to be a terrible working environment. I also find it kind of ironic that the co-founders of an inherently social app like Tinder appear so poor at handling interpersonal/romantic relationships.
I don't want to downplay the situation but I feel like it's your responsibility as an adult to disengage from situations like this faster than she did. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess
Honestly, I don't think it's that simple; some people are so insecure, you can run away to a different country and they'll still find a way to spoil your day with their obsessiveness.
Would this have ended differently if she'd not pursued things after a couple of months, a month, a week?
I'm not convinced; all it takes is for the person on the other end to be even a tiny bit obsessive, and it's game over.
What might have helped is someone taking the guy aside and saying, "Mate, come on, you're taking this too far. I know you want to stay in touch, and that you still kinda like the girl. That's not healthy for you, though. You need to be the bigger person[1], and you need to move on."
[1] A minor bit of ego stroking can help
I genuinely believe that oftentimes, people don't realise that they're being scarily obsessive, and a trusted friend holding up a mirror can do wonders.
> I also find it kind of ironic that the co-founders of an inherently social app like Tinder appear so poor at handling interpersonal/romantic relationships.
Maybe it's not so surprising if your idea of human interaction is based on a binarized version of hotornot.com
I've never understood Tinder this way. To me, it's simply a pre-screening filter: you and everyone else throws out all the people who you would never want to date anyway, and then you're left with the set of people who have expressed mutual non-disinterest. From there, you get to know one-another as normal.
Basically, it's less like a dating service, and more like meeting someone on the street--with the proviso that you never have to question whether the other person feels attracted to you.
'disengage from situations like this' is a rather casual and insulting way to depict the idea of bailing out on founder/co-founder status on a startup you care about just because one of your cofounders turned out to be a piece of shit.
Arguably her course of action was the correct one. She tried to resolve things quietly by being an adult, and tolerated a little bit of abuse in the hopes that the job could keep working and the startup wouldn't be undermined - obviously she cared about it.
When it became clear that this shit wasn't going to stop, she resigned, and sued them. The best hope for Tinder as a company at this point is for the problematic founder(s) to be ejected so the company can be run by actual adults. For her to just roll over and quit would be unacceptable - they'd get to continue their abuse on other employees - and for her to just sit there and take it would also be unacceptable.
From what I understand of Tinder, it intrinsically plans on user's social insecurities in dating and other social media by removing risk from the situation.
I thought Tinder's inherent mutual interest-based design was a step in a good direction for online dating. I had to set my okcupid profile to "women only" and then eventually deleted it because I was really tired of men I have nothing in common with messaging and harassing me. Forget other sites - they weren't any better. Mutual interest is a powerful thing. If overanalyzing Tinder will help create better dating apps so be it, we'll all be better off for it.
disclaimer: I know a Tinder co-founder (not the one in question) but I'm married anyway, not in the dating pool ;)
Dumb apps, products and services do incredible complex social things and have involved consequences to our psychology all the time -- even without any specific intent from their owners.
It's not because the apps are smart and complex -- it's because WE, humans, are smart and complex.
If that's how it came across I probably really expressed myself improperly because that wasn't my point at all (English being my second language probably doesn't help and I really hesitated to post because I knew there was a chance I wasn't properly formulating my argument).
So let me clarify: I don't believe it was her fault in any way. Quite the opposite, I believe 100% that the guy is at fault here. My point was more related to the fact that we (myself included) tend to maintain relationships that are clearly unhealthy in hindsight. I probably should have chosen a better word than responsibility seeing as it was more a comment aimed at the apparent lack of capacity to adequately disengage from unhealthy situations a lot of adults seem to exhibit. We're not used to saying "no" and to moving on. I was only saying this because similar situations happened to me in which I wished later that I could have disengaged and saved me some heartache.
I believe (only from reading this complaint) that the behavior exhibited by Mateen is unacceptable and reprehensible and that he's clearly at fault. My intention was not to blame her but merely to express a general observation regarding a lot of relationship failures I witnessed. So if this came across as victim blaming I sincerely apologize. It wasn't the intent.
The finer points of their relationship are none of our business. That he took a the consequences of a personal relationship into the workplace, is where it becomes our business. Who's at fault in the relationship - none of our business. That no HR anything was available as a resource to mitigate the situation, is what is all of our business — and something that as an industry, we need to step-up to the plate to change. More from me on that, when I launch...
>>My point was more related to the fact that we (myself included) tend to maintain relationships that are clearly unhealthy in hindsight.
We don't have any indication that she lacked the capacity to disengage. She was dating her boss, and may have feared retaliation.
That's one reason dating your superiors or direct reports is a big no-no. The power dynamic can only be managed by the most mature couples, and even then it's a huge liability for the company.
The point is that reading something like this, the least interesting topic is what the complainant could have done differently.
The principle discussion is: never shoulda happened. Inappropriate, unacceptable. Not second guessing the strategy of someone in an impossible situation.
I have to disagree that it's the least interesting topic. A relationship is never a one way street and while in this situation one of the party clearly seems to be at fault, it's not always the case. Of course it never should have happened but it has and so the discussion about damage mitigation is still a valid one.
I wish I was taught any kind of disengagement skill when I was being bullied as a kid, even though it never should have happened (and since I can foresee the uproar here, I'm in no way implying the two are equivalent but merely noticing similarities).
It's a shame that "here are some tips to protect yourzelf from assholes" only come up after a case like this. Because in this context it does feel a little bit like victim blaming, even with all the caveats.
That's because it should read "here are some tips to avoid being an asshole". "Here are tips to protect yourself from assholes" is very much victim blaming no matter the context.
Sure, some of it - most of it - might be good advice (e.g. don't date cofounders/coworkers) but in the end that advice in itself won't do anything if the other person is an asshole. Whitney could have avoided a relationship and tried to defuse things as best as she could, but Justin could still have been an ass and harass her for rejecting him.
Victim-blaming implies someone has blamed someone else for their circumstance. Telling someone how to avoid assholes is not victim-blaming, its education that all [young] adults should receive, because it helps people make informed decisions and be responsible adults.
All adults maintain responsibility for their own actions. That goes for both the assholes and the victims. Ideally, everyone would get exactly the same training, because everyone has the capacity to be either an asshole or a victim.
Of course we know that in our particular society (as in many others) women are at higher risk for being abused, and men are more likely to be the abuser. So it seems like there should still be an equal amount of education, but that men should probably receive greater feedback about how (and why) not to be an asshole, and women should receive greater feedback on how to protect themselves from assholes.
So are police victim-blaming when they give advice about the number of cars stolen from petrol station forecourts (because people fill up, then go and pay, but leave the keys in the ignition and the doors open) and suggest that people should be a bit careful?
Certainly in this thread any advice is victim blaming.
But that doesn't make the advice useless or pointless or harmful.
And it's certainly on topic for HN - psychology of dealing with difficult people applies to work and suppliers and customers and regulators and yes, unrepentant assholes.
maybe not so much 'least interesting' as 'not the right moment'. It's kind of like bringing up that one should avoid dangerous neighborhoods right when someone got mugged and killed.
It's a valid point, and it doesn't mean you're blaming the victim, but it's perhaps not the best time bring it up, and people might easily misconstrue what you're saying.
This isn't an article about sexual harassment though. It's one side of the story, involving an obviously messy inappropriate relationship.
Is it wise for two founders to date? I'd say no. She must share some of the blame, and who's to say what his side of the story is, and what exhibits he has showing her in a bad light?
EXCUSE ME, this is very MUCH a story about sexual harassment.
One founder was removed from the "Founder's Suite," because it was believed that having a woman as a founder would work against the company's valuation/brand-equity. That is black and white sexual harassment. It is discrimination based on gender. Period.
Secondly: Founders date. Employees date. Subordinates and Managers, date. It happens. It's not "should they," it's that "they do" and there are appropriate methods to mitigate this. What is personal, is personal—and what is professional, is professional.
HR departments have methods to mitigate this. Startups being "above" or "too cool" to engage HR professionals early in their lifecycles, are to blame for most of these kinds of problems. GitHub, now Tinder, and many others I can't think of off the top of my head. HR exists to keep the personal, personal—and the professional, professional.
There is NO blame for a relationship going sour, at the professional level. None. Our industry has a ways to go. We all need to be in on that, together.
This isn't an article about sexual harassment though... She must share some of the blame
In your world, calling someone a whore in front of their co-workers is both acceptable and not sexual harassment?
It's nonsense to suggest that somehow he was forced hurl such insults at her.
The only person responsible their own actions is that same person; you don't get to abdicate responsibility for your actions just because you dated someone.
>>You're still ignoring the fact that this is one sides account of an obviously messy situation.
Because it's irrelevant.
>>What happened before he called her a whore? Did she bait him, did she harass him, did she cheat on him, etc etc
It was his choice to call her a whore in front of their colleagues (and note: this is just one example from the harassment claim, there're plenty of unsavoury actions quoted).
Words said or past actions don't give you the right to demean someone at the workplace.
>>My point was when you date someone, there's often blame on both sides when things turn sour.
Which, again, is irrelevant to creating a hostile working environment.
When you're a grown-up, you accept responsibility for your actions, and that the only person making decisions about what you do is - guess what? - you.
If you've had a messy breakup, well, honestly, that really really sucks.
It absolutely does not give you the right to harass the other person.
* This is only one side of the story.
* It's completely plausible that she did bad things as well.
* It's for the court to decide. Not random internet lynch mobs based on biased one sided information.
Hopefully your black and white view of the world changes someday.
If you're just removing part of the image after cutting around it with a tool like this, having the object interpreted as 3D isn't really going to be of any benefit.
The impressive thing here, imho, is the seemingly effortless and seamless transition and replacement. The background is fixed and the surface texture is stretched in what seems like real time.
The Apple II had modifier keys called "open Apple" and "closed Apple", which occupied the same keys used for Command and Option on the Mac respectively. Many Apple keyboards printed both symbols.
The Apple IIe, technically. The original Apple II and Apple II+ [1] did not have them. Interestingly, I believe those keys were tied to the joystick buttons.
It actually IS demonstrably true that the brain is made of atoms. That makes it a quantum system, which our modern physics tells us how to simulate. The use of the term "impractical" here refers to the fact that we don't have quantum computers and that we don't have the computing power required to simulate such a large quantum system.
I'd say dismissing thousands of years of philosophy here is relevant, since it was likely produced before we had the tools to understand what we're dealing with. All experimental physics points towards an understanding of how quantum systems work, and that's all we need to model any quantum system. The brain is not any different because it's a brain.
quantum theory is a hypothesis. perhaps it's the best one so far for what the brain is made from. but it's truth is only as demonstrable as this: it's not yet been falsified.
You're confusing hypothesis with theory. Hypothesis is a proposed explanation that can be tested (i.e. is falsifiable). Theory, on the other hand, is a hypothesis that has undergone extensive testing and has been proven to be a plausible explanation for observed phenomena. Quantum mechanics has undergone rigorous testing, and has proven time and time again that it can accurately explain many of the properties of our universe.
You can say the exact same thing about any scientific model. My view on this has always been that as long as the model accurately predicts experimental results, assume it is correct for your calculations until it is proven to be wrong.
Even then, we never stopped using classical mechanics even though they were proven to be wrong at a variety of scales. They just happen to very closely approximate reality in some contexts and are useful.
The fact of the matter is, we have tools that are correct as far as we know and they point towards thinking that every quantum system is computable. Until this has been proven wrong, the fallacy is believing the brain is different, not the other way around.
Theories not only have to predict outcomes of events, they must also be falsifiable (and must expand on something thus far unexplained by other theories, you can't just recreate gravitational theory, for example).
You are, by your own admission, working with an incomplete understanding of how a scientific model functions. So I ask you, why should you be even commenting on this topic? Why should anyone take what you have to say seriously on this specific topic?
So no one should be commenting on this topic unless they have a perfect understanding of scientific theory? That seems terribly counter-productive.
I'm commenting on this topic to share my opinion and, to the extent of my knowledge, try to explain why I believe someone else's reasoning is flawed.
Now if you believe my reasoning is false, you're free to call that out. You're not free, however, to dismiss my contribution to the discussion simply because I'm not operating under perfect understanding of a field that isn't mine.
Call it out, explain why, participate in the discussion, and drop the personal attacks. I think at least part of my point is valid, even after what you pointed out.
I'm pretty sure I am free to dismiss your contribution "simply" because you don't know what you're talking about.
But let's not get caught in the weeds here; I don't think you're correctly conveying the level of certainty with which we understand quantum mechanics. There's a ton we don't have the slightest idea about in this area of science, so let's not forget that.
Quantum theory is a "hypothesis"? The entire foundation of modern electronics is based on quantum theory. It's something that has been tested over and over in labs and the regular world for over a century.
Yes, the brain is made up of atoms, but our modern physics does not, at least not with the degree of certainty you're waving about, tell us that it is therefore, necessarily, simulatable.
I believe this to be the case, and there is some evidence that this is the case, but it is not anywhere near as certain as you're claiming.
As for your word choice re: impractical, the word shouldn't be used in place of 'impossible', which is the correct word you're looking for.
How are you getting these printed and shipped? Do you do it yourself or consume a 3rd party service?