And people are allowed to criticize his reluctance to accept those vital security patches, because he submitted code packaged as a crate to be used by others on a public registry.
By publishing something to be used by others in a public registry, you are opting in to receive criticism from the public.
Criticism is not the same thing as vitriol and I’m not endorsing the latter even one iota.
You've broken the site guidelines egregiously in this thread. Since you also have a long history of breaking the HN guidelines, we'd normally ban an account for this, but it has been posting pretty well in recent history, so I won't ban it this time.
you know what would be useful mr. arbiter-of-what's-appropriate? if you would point out exactly what you believe i've done that is "egregious" instead of just vaguely alluding to the guidelines page and leave it up to interpretation/divination/mind-reading. as far as i can tell i've engaged in a good faith discussion/debate and it was solely this other person that shouted/antagonized. the only informal (could be perceived as antagonistic) thing i did was remark on how that person was moving goal posts after i clarified and produced reasoning for my position and how i'm glad that one valuable thing that came out of the exchange was i learned to avoid them in the future. as far as i can tell in the comment chain, it was the other person's that got flagged first and was the source of the tension.
there's something so aggravating about how you preside (note i didn't call it moderation) over these forums. what is the point of a voting system if you can unilaterally censor and censure? you know what the pretense to "objective" and "rational" discourse of this forum does? it inspires the kind of arrogance you see here on so many posts - absolutist positions on everything from tech to healthcare to history. the brand of yc and you and the rhetoric of the guidelines and you all function as an aegis.
For starters, "man i'm glad there are identifying details about you in your profile so i can avoid working with you" is an egregious personal attack, certainly something we'd ban accounts for, especially when they have a history of breaking the site guidelines.
> what is the point of a voting system if you can unilaterally censor and censure?
HN is a constitutional democracy. I can see why you'd find it annoying if you're assuming otherwise. We can't go by upvotes alone—if comments break the site guidelines, it doesn't matter how upvoted they are.
The voting system alone doesn't regulate itself—it leads to flamewars because indignant and unsubstantive comments frequently get upvoted. That's why there need to be countervailing mechanisms like flagging and moderation.
i would love for you precisely identify what part of
>man i'm glad there are identifying details about you in your profile so i can avoid working with you
is an attack. it's an expression of my personal exasperation. there's literally not a single ascription of any qualities to the other person. you can ctrl+f "you" or "your" in this subtree
and i in no place ascribe any qualities to anyone. my only other remark was pointing out the other person's belligerence which i still didn't make personal.
so either you can claim that there's something like a "zero tolerance" policy for antagonism or you can retract what you've accused me of.
this is my overarching point and has been for years on hn: it's evil to paint with a broad brush people that are actually antagonistic and those that don't feel they should toe the line in response to those people. your constitutional moderation is this brush.
