I mean capitalism goes together with authoritarianism pretty good. Just look at the companies that still exist today that helped the Third Reich. Perhaps it's time to want a different underlying system that wouldn't have a bottomline for profit maximization? idk
Please don't take HN threads into generic ideological arguments. It just leads to tedious, lame, and nasty flamewar—always the same—and those are off topic here.
It's quite incredible how bad the internet is at discussing this stuff thoughtfully. It's clearly not the medium for it. It bonds with all its failure modes (e.g. snark, screaming, and paranoia) into one hell of a compound. We're trying for something different on HN, and for that to work we need users to be aware of this and not go there.
Doesn't this thread already pose an ideological argument (e.g. country x and y are authoritarian/bad, while country z isn't)?
I personally find it really hard to refrain from commenting when there is a very once sided view presented on a front-page topic.
The issue I have is that some topics feel like they are either flamewar or a one-sided view where people feel like they can't comment because going against that view might start a flamewar. Neither promote curiosity
edit: My comment isn't necessarily connected to that of parent, but more to your reply
No one is asked to refrain from commenting, but everyone is asked to comment within HN's guidelines, which call for respectful, curious conversation, avoiding flamebait, political/ideological/national battle, name-calling, fulmination, snark, and other internet failure modes: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. It's that simple—in theory. In practice it is not so easy.
People sometimes imagine that the rules say that political threads are off topic, but that's not so at all. Stories with political overlap are inevitable here, and not a bad thing (as long as they don't get too dominant in the overall mix). They only become a bad thing when people descend into name-calling, flamewar, and the rest of the above list.
I wouldn't say that about the OP. It obviously has political overlap, but it's not generic-ideological. That would be more like "all corporations always do what authoritarian governments say"—yet even such an article could conceivably be on topic here if it were substantive, went deeply into specific evidence, and wasn't primarily flamebait. What we don't want as an initial condition for a thread here is the unsubstantive sort of ideological article that hurls flameballs of snarky rhetoric.
After that, it's the commenters' duty not to take thread further into flamewar, such as with generic ideological rhetoric. I know it's not easy but it's not as if the principle is hard to understand.
Here's a fun bit from an attempt to hold to account IG Farben, manufacturers of Zkylon B.
> All defendants who were sentenced to prison received early release. Most were quickly restored to their directorships and other positions in post-war companies, and some were awarded the Federal Cross of Merit.
Not sure why you've been downvoted, the list of complicit orgs is long.
IBM, takes pride of place for their tabulation machines.
Ford, and GM, for converting their German subsidiary factories to wartime usages, while declining to do the same in the USA. Nevermind Henry Ford's proclivity for funding anti-semitism.
Then of course, all the German manufacturers of note.
Krupp, Daimler, IG Farben, Hugo Boss...
I'm keen on your examples from Iran. Was it the time that the British asked the CIA to depose the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, and reinstall the Shah, for the benefit of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now a subsidiary of BP)?
No, I think it was the time a civil unrest threw the Shah and put the ayatollahs in power with the help of the Soviet Union (which is suspiciously absent from your remarks) and now their women face jail for not wearing the veil or their homosexuals are hung by a crane
Both examples fit (one is monarchy—a stage managed abortive coup to justify an autocoup (the CIA directing both) by which a constitutional monarchy became a dictatorial one—the other a politics/religion merger.)
If you are describing the problem the way it has upthread but only pointing to one or the other of the Iranian examples, it's pretty obviously being selective for dishonest purposes.
We've banned accounts for "spewing hatred at Iran" (and other countries). You shouldn't falsely accuse people, let alone make up grave charges like hating a great people (or any people).
You have little credibility asking for "objective and holistic" discussion when your accounts routinely post falsehoods, behave viciously, and foster flamewars. HN's rules are designed specifically to support the kind of discussion you criticize others for not having, and you're breaking those rules as consistently as anyone here.
There's no problem with thoughtful criticism. The problem is that when people on the internet argue about capitalism, socialism, and other big generic topics like that, discussions quickly turn repetitive and nasty. It's that which we don't want, because it's destructive of curious conversation, so we ask people not to do it and ban them if they ignore our requests.
We moderate the same way regardless of which direction the bashing is going. If you looked at this objectively, that would be obvious to you, but ideologues of whatever flavor only look at half the data—the half (or whatever the percentage is) which supports their side. Then they make up monsters based on it ("dang has decreed thou shalt not criticize capitalism!!") That part is easy, since any data which contradicts it has been excluded. What no one wants to reckon with is that their enemies on the other side have exactly the same picture—they just think the mods are secretly working for you and out to get them.
Since you don't want to use HN as intended and are ignoring our requests to follow the rules, I've banned the account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26648613.
Well, yep, the Ayatollahs and Soviets were "suspiciously" absent from my remarks because I was referring to the British-American coup of 1953, not the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
Not sure why you find it suspicious that I wouldn't label actors who didn't really come on stage for 26 years, and who came to prominence because of the unpopularity of the Padishah installed at the behest of American and British corporate interests.
In fact, they were entirely irrelevant. Why did you feel the need to invoke them?
IMO the best example is Chiquita -- they conspired with the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala to secure their banana fields against the "godless communists." Naturally, they left Guatemala with a right-wing dictatorship. This kicked off a 46 year long civil war and the fallout has directly contributed to the migrant crisis at the border. They called it Operation PBSuccess. [1]
You're noticing, and then overgeneralizing, the data points you dislike (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). The overgeneralization comes because you don't notice (or underemphasize) the data points that don't make you angry. This is classic sample bias, as I believe I've pointed out to you under a different username in the past.
Once people arrive at a spurious generalization like this, they imagine grandiose and sinister explanations for it. But the truth is quite boring: the community is divided the same way society at large is divided, the same way any large-enough population sample is. The only way HN is different is that we try to stop people from bashing each other with rhetorical two-by-fours about it. With limited success.
Since you've continued to post flamewar comments and ignore our requests to stop, I've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with. For someone who purports to care about community, that's incongruent.
You just have to be realistic and contextual with the conversations you're entering in.
In the above comments, I might as well very much seem like a virtue signaling SJW that would rather have a small language win than a hard-problem-solved kinda win.
However, outside of these few comments, I'm active in leftist political organizations and I've organized strikes, campaigns and more to best the actual lively hood of a lot of lower class (and therefor usually radically diverse) people.
Just keep in mind that this _is_ about language in this context. But for me as someone that tries to make every part of my live better for me people, this is also part of that, how small and ridiculous it might seem in it's effect.
I for one think it's great that people are willing to make things a little more accessible for more people. If people want to be part of our community of developers I think it's great that these organizations listen to people who might have a problem with certain terminology. Even though I don't have a problem with those terms, I think it's still worth evaluating if they're worth keeping if it makes it harder for someone to be part of our community.
Hope more of you feel the same, as I'm getting kind of tired of the "the SJWs are at it again" shtick. There's also legitimate reasons to why these changes are necessary outside of some loud obnoxious screams from certain SJW-like people, that yes, are annoying to hear. Some of the response from our community to "push back against this" is just equally weird, tone deaf and childish however.
Say what you want, be we all know we've done silly refactors over smaller things. So don't make this bigger than it should be: it's about making our community bigger by making it easier for people to be part of it!
> I for one think it's great that people are willing to make things a little more accessible for more people. If people want to be part of our community of developers I think it's great that these organizations listen to people who might have a problem with certain terminology. Even though I don't have a problem with those terms, I think it's still worth evaluating if they're worth keeping if it makes it harder for someone to be part of our community.
Is it more accessible? As in, is this change driven by complaints from actual people who feel excluded by the terminology? As far as I'm aware, none of the projects making these changes even claims that, it's all speculation on behalf of hypothetical offended parties.
Not that it really makes it less annoying to have terminology used by people from all over the world be dictated by American cultural sensibilities, but it's easier to stomach if there's some material justification behind the change.
> Is it more accessible? As in, is this change driven by complaints from actual people who feel excluded by the terminology? As far as I'm aware, none of the projects making these changes even claims that, it's all speculation on behalf of hypothetical offended parties.
I'm an African American, and no I'm not offended by Git's branch name. White progressives spend so much time on virtue signalling but hardly pay any attention to pressing Black problems like Black poverty and education.
I don't know, I can't speak for the people who's access is limited. However, I am Dutch and can say that these cultural sensibilities are far outside of just the "American" one.
There are plenty of people that struggle with this terminology in a realistic way. Even if you can't find anecdotal evidence of someone being offended by this, you can rationally come to the conclusion that it might be worth changing it. And for it to be accessible, it doesn't need to come 100% from the people that face problems with the terminology. If it were to be 100% those people, than it would be a great from of cultural emancipation however!
I mean, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for at least a couple actual examples of this change helping people feel better about participating in technology. In the absence of such, it all feels very performative and, dare I say, a cheap way to score good PR for participating organizations. I don't think it really hurts anyone to an extent that it should be opposed, but neither does it really help, until proven otherwise.
> However, I am Dutch and can say that these cultural sensibilities are far outside of just the "American" one.
Are they? Does the master/slave terminology also have very negative connotations in your culture? I thought it was almost exclusively an American thing due to their historical circumstances.
I would suggest looking up what the Dutch did in relation to race equality in history and how we were involved in a lot of slave trade, sometimes even to the US.
I would say you have a point with saying it's performative, and I don't have anything to counter that. However, perhaps your energy could be spent looking for someone that is actually offended by this to counter your own perspective?
Kinda Karl Popper style of disprove your own theory?
> I would suggest looking up what the Dutch did in relation to race equality in history and how we were involved in a lot of slave trade, sometimes even to the US.
I am aware of the history, but that's not enough to give the words themselves emotional charge and significance. The reason this is so for Americans is that the consequences of slavery and racial segregation are keenly felt right now - it's not just an abstract wrong committed on people long ago and far away. As a point of comparison, I'm from Eastern Europe, and the word "slave" is derived from "Slav" - but this is effectively ancient history with little bearing on the present, and so the word doesn't carry any emotional charge or special meaning.
To put things differently, is there a segment of the Dutch populace for whom the words "master" and "slave" signify that kind of viscerally felt injustice, as they do for black people in the US? This isn't a gotcha question, I genuinely don't know, and these kinds can be arbitrary and irrational. For Poles, "slavery" is abstract, but "forced labor" brings up some major traumas from around World War 2, for example.
> Kinda Karl Popper style of disprove your own theory?
I was hoping someone would do it for me in this thread. :) Might still happen, if not, I might have to do some digging.
> I am aware of the history, but that's not enough to give the words themselves emotional charge and significance.
I disagree. Nazis, soviets did a lot of crimes against humanity and in certain countries symbols of those regimes are banned, also speaking positively about it also is banned by claiming it dismisses all those crimes.
It’s not required for that word to be relevant NOW in order to be somewhat negative/avoided.
I think it applies also to master/slave stuff: it attempts to normalize those terms by dismissing history of those words. Also - if we forget shortly that we are used to master branch in git: why word “master” is right choice for it? for me “main” makes sense.
The English-language Internet (and tech) field has a large centre of gravity in the US, so those of us outside of the US do tend view a lot of the rending of garments on some topics to be quite strange.
There are plenty of people in our society that actually have a negative relationship to these terms that we commonly use in our profession. Psychologically, it can be harder to be part of a group of people or a profession when you have to use these terms, therefor lowering accessibility. This can be because of stigma enforcing terminology (such is the case of master/slave for some people).
These are usually not effects experienced by the majority that's fine with those terms however, which makes it hard to empathize with people that do struggle. Unfortunately, people seem to think that rationality without empathy is always the road to a good conclusion. When you do it in these contexts, however, you're actively excluding those who you fail to empathize with.
Please stop speaking up on behalf of African Americans without consulting their own opinion on this matter.
I'm one and not even my Black friends care about this silly posturing from White progressives. We are frankly getting tired of this virtue signalling while the American society doesn't give a shit about actual Black problems.
What is "rationality without empathy"? Have you tried getting off that armchair and tried talking to poor Black people to understand how they feel?
Yes I have. Very weird for you to assume I don't. I don't live in America, however I am constantly reminded of my country's (The Netherlands) colonial past (you know, the spice trading, genocide inducing, slave trading one) and the repercussions of that. My city's suburban neighborhoods are filled with people of lower class of all different types of ethnicities. I've done as much as I could in the last few years to emancipate them, and as such I have ran into these "language problems" before, even in Dutch, even in different places than tech.
To act as if our community does not have those issues, or to think that I do not have anything meaningful to say because I'm in an "armchair" doesn't make sense. I'm not American, I'm not speaking on behalf of African Americans, I'm speaking on behalf of myself and my own experience.
I don't necessarily think this will persuade you to think differently however, so yeah. Keep your opinion, but don't assume my circumstance based on your subjective experience.
As someone from a working class background, I find your use of the term "lower class" problematic. It suggests you somehow perceive me and my ancestors as beneath you, or that we have less inherent worth as human beings. We prefer the term "working class". I find it strange that you're so keen to tell others that using inclusive language is a non-issue, yet you yourself are perpetuating stereotypes by using exclusionary and hurtful language.
You're right. My apologies. It is problematic and didn't think of the repercussions of translating my thoughts like that. I am capable of making mistakes, but don't mistake that for unwilling to do good or willfully being exclusionary or being hurtful on purpose.
EDIT: Also worth noting I am actually originally from those neighborhoods and I'm also raised in a working class family. I'm also working class by my country's standards.
It evokes slavery and makes some people feel unwelcome. Many other projects have made similar changes to their own repos (eg Go made the same switch) and there has been quite a lot written on the topic if you google around.
He's probably created an anonymous account because we live in a world where you may well lose your job for even questioning that a _source control branch name_ might offend someone.
An opinion that - in the real world - the vast majority agree with.
Trying to portray the use of terms like master-slave as something that "might offend someone" is a complete misrepresentation of the issue, and one that is spawned from bad faith.
The overall goal is inclusiveness. The goal is not centered around whether an expression offends, but whether an arbitrary naming choice does not help accommodate other people or if it might bring discussions and debates over personal matters some people feel strongly about.
A few decades back, there was a common rule of thumb that was quite simple: do not discuss politics or religion in the workplace. The reasoning is straight-forward and simple to understand: if you wish to work somewhere where coworkers do not antagonize other coworkers for stupid personal reasons then you simply didn't opened the door to discussions about stupid personal matters.
> Say what you want, be we all know we've done silly refactors over smaller things.
As a very very junior dev, I had "nuke" in a function name, and logging that included the function's name. Turns out Japanese customers are not super big fans of nukes. Lesson learned, small change made, life goes on.
>There's also legitimate reasons to why these changes are necessary outside of some loud obnoxious screams from certain SJW-like people, that yes, are annoying to hear. Some of the response from our community to "push back against this" is just equally weird, tone deaf and childish however.
I understand your perspective. I'm not against changing the term. We changed it in our product a few years ago (master-slave to primary-secondary) as well ... primarily because even if you offend one (current or potential) customer it's just not a hill worth dying on.
But to address your point though, I wish there was some acknowledgment by 'the SJWs' (as you put it) that even if the term is archaic and should change, the tech community simply used a descriptive dictionary term for a particular architecture, and therefore the term is wholly unconnected to 'white supremacy' or 'systemic racism' or 'unconscious bias'. But for many who raise these issues, there is no good-will or charity. And that's why there is pushback. Many people don't want to accept the position that they were purposely insulting other people when these terms were in widespread use.
> Many people don't want to accept the position that they were purposely insulting other people when these terms were in widespread use.
True, but I think it's important to notice that you're not purposely insulting people until you start defending this terminology that can be oppressive for some people. Everyone in this entire thread had the opportunity to go "you know what, if this makes someone feel unwelcome, I get that. Perhaps a good idea to change it". It's when people start defending something that is both "so unimportant that they don't understand" but also super important that it doesn't change just gives a really weird vibe.
I just can't seem to understand why people are so unwilling to just be a little bit more welcoming, even if it is hypothetical according to them.
In general I find tech to be a very welcoming industry, especially compared to every other industry. I think there's a human issue that is happening, namely, if you come in with a negative and accusatory energy people will be turned off by that, get very defensive, and mirror your energy back at you. That's not a tech thing, but a human thing. And yes, many people do feel beaten down with constant accusations of ill will. This is why the principle of goodwill and charity (i.e. assuming the best intentions of people) is so important for all sides.
Good intentions are hard to see, you missed it yourself. Of course SJWs have problematized this in terms of semantic drift, but most people only listen to the extremes and use those to define the average of that group. Often I find being tuned into the bad intentions of the people you agree with is more important.
> I for one think it's great that people are willing to make things a little more accessible for more people.
This doesn't achieve that. It very clearly does nothing.
Human beings as basic pattern matching engines have been hacked by things like twitter to amplify beyond reasonableness many concepts and ideas which they are shown as related and then regurgitate and spread.
Whilst this in particular may not be "important" it is certainly but one minor example of a very serious trend that is demonstrating a very low latency mechanism at play for creating fast paced change in western society that undermines the strengths of slow change that made it so successful.
Now you might be the kind of person who might have a desire to see those fundamentals undermined under a guise of faux altruistic reasonableness, I don't know, but the overly simplistic acceptance of it indicates an avoidance of any of the reasons why people might be resistant to it. Thus why i question your motivations here.
I think it's important to be inclusive. I'm not against this but there are definitely situations where this has gone too far. I've started to notice some companies completely excluding white men from PR images and not sending them to events which is super weird and definitely not inclusive.
Yeah that's true, and I feel you on that. It's just that when conversing with people that do feel like these "SJWs" exist, makes it seem more nuanced, since you're distancing yourself from that stigma even though you're saying things relatively similar to SJWs.
Honestly, I just do it avoid being called one, even though I'm not in any way close to something that could be defined as a SJW.
Anyone who believes that "master" is some kind of slur and takes the opportunity to take offense over it is not someone you want causing problems in your organization.
I dont know, I was taught from a very young age to be nice. And honestly, I kinda of kept it as a close part of my personality to not make anyone feel uncomfortable for any reason. Although I can argue most of these things from a political angle, I also feel like "making people feel more welcome" is a goal in and of itself, and therefor can't be overlooked.
Honestly, I feel like if you would have a problem with a particular community you would like to have it resolved too right? I just don't think that it's ever been about terminology because you never had to feel uncomfortable because of it. That's not bad however, but it's easy to forget that if you don't relate to someone subjective reality, doesn't mean it's any less real.
If someone still struggles to get behind it, think of the few chars that will be shorter to type and also think how it is much easier to compare the branch concept a real tree, and talk about the main branch. Maybe they could have gone for trunk? (If you care so much about main vs trunk, then choose whatever makes you happy)
It's very smart.
Trunk is a better term than "main" and reflects very well the logic with the tree and historical naming (including CVS, SVN, and the trunk software itself).
main implies that one branch is more important than the others.
This could be offending to some.
> main implies that one branch is more important than the others. This could be offending to some.
What if one branch is actually more important than others? What about weighted graphs? Stochastic dominance? You can't blindly project social concepts on math/computing science, it's a blind alley.
It's HN so it may not be. In Japan, main family is the superior family while branch families are treated as lower class. This imperial system is still very much prevalent and map to skin too.
“I am personally not offended by this, therefore anyone that is offended is a problem to be removed”
People have different life experiences and backgrounds. The cost to you of renaming is near zero, if you’re the one loudly opposing something that makes your coworkers more comfortable then you’re the one causing problems in the organisation.
I have yet to hear of anyone being actually offended by this.
> The cost to you of renaming is near zero
Not true. I just had to update a load of tests for a git client I'm working on that assume the default branch name is `master` (I wrote them before this mess), and now I have to configure Git on every system I use to use a default name of master. It's not a huge pain, sure, but it isn't nothing and I don't get any benefit from it either.
Sounds like a flaw in your git client. It was always possible to change the default branch name, so hardcoding master was never right. You’re far from alone in making that assumption though! The good news is this makes everyone’s git tools more resilient.
> It’s not a huge pain, sure, but it isn’t nothing and I don’t get any benefit from it either
The entire notion here is accommodating people. It doesn’t benefit you personally but it does benefit others. And it’s not a huge pain. At a certain point we’re expending more energy debating doing this than if everyone just did it and moved on with their lives.
It wasn't in the client, it was in the tests. You know like, here's a script that makes a test repo:
git init
git add foo.txt
git commit -m "A"
git switch -c develop
git add bar.txt
git commit -m "B"
git merge master # This will break soon.
> The entire notion here is accommodating people.
Is it though? It seems to me like the notion is appearing to accommodate people. I still haven't seen a single person say "my great grandfather was a slave and this offends me", only people saying "this might offend someone".
> I still haven't seen a single person say "my great grandfather was a slave and this offends me", only people saying "this might offend someone".
In today's world, it's enough for many companies. Si vis pacem, para bellum. You don't want to passively wait until you're attacked, you need to prepare the defenses first so your enemies don't even have a ground to stand.
If you strip away all the political outrage what’s actually happening on a technical level is that git is adding a new feature: customisable default branches. I imagine they will provide an option to use it (“git checkout —-default” or whatever) and yes, you’ll have to update your tests to accommodate it. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had to tweak code because of an external API change that doesn’t benefit me personally. Often it involves using an entire new API because the old one is being retired! Compared to that this is a walk in the park. A couple of hours at most. And yet everyone is expending hours upon hours arguing about it.
Right but people are arguing about it because it is unnecessary! I bet if an API you use broke backwards compatibility just so it could `color` to `colour` you'd be arguing against it too!
OK so we’re finally at the actual core of the matter: the technical arguments aren’t actually valid, it’s that you don’t think it’s worth the minimal effort because you don’t personally know of anyone that is offended by the master/slave connotation of “master” branches. That’s always the actual core of the complaint yet everyone dances around it.
We all know exactly the kind of people driving this change. We've worked with them. We know how they function on teams and in the office. We know they aren't particularly good at what they do, barring a few exceptions. And we know what they will do to us, to our jobs, and to our companies if we don't bow to their demands.
I don't know, seems like a very weird subjective reality you're trying to push in an objective one. I am one of those people, yet I haven't had any significant problems with my work ethic.
Pushing a narrative that these people are "gonna do something to us" is a weird one to push. What's gonna happen? We're gonna be kinder to one another? We would want to make people around us happy in a profoundly human way rather than a shallow one?
Just to follow you along in your way of thinking. What are "we" gonna do to your job and your companies? I honestly fail to see what you mean.
Claiming without evidence that African Americans are offended (not to mention it is patronizing to them) by a term like "master" is subjective reality.
If an employer or coworker doesn’t agree to whatever is your latest demand, “you” would start a campaign to get them fired or contact their customers to try to lose them business. Happens regularly.
I mean, that would imply you would prefer a term that is in a way discriminatory to a particular group right? Not in bad faith, but it seems you kind off admitted that there is some evil in doing so, and that you're willing to do it.
Also, I wouldn't do that. Emancipating an actual workforce or colleagues would be my solution, not making the company suffer under it.
In most places this is true. But working in Plantation heavy part of the South, it’s awkward.
Read it in a Southern white male accent to someone whose grandparents were sharecroppers in the Delta. We lose a lot of black talent to other industries, non technical roles in IT, and other locations despite good pay/cost of living.
My black friend from high school on my team who is not overly sensitive and I have open conversations on race with has says it occasionally makes him cringe. I try to maintain an environment that’s sensitive to people’s real feelings, because I want them all to enjoy work. Not PC BS, but thinking about who needs to be asked to speak up, who needs more quiet time, etc.
Probably hearing it in a different accent would make it more divorced from the past.
This alone obviously won’t fix anything. But it’s one less thing to make people feel uncomfortable, and it doesn’t cost anything except a naming convention.
People talk about diversity as if it’s just helping minorities. But working with low and high functioning teams over the years, my experience is that a happy diverse team is productive and creates a better product. I think including more perspectives in a job that is creative creates better results earlier in the process.
So what did your friend say? "I don't want to work here anymore because I keep hearing "push my change on master branch" and that is uncomfortable to me"? And how do you know that this is making IT lose talent?
> My black friend from high school on my team who is not overly sensitive and I have open conversations on race with has says it occasionally makes him cringe
I'm sorry to hear your friend won't be obtaining a degree just beyond a Bachelor's, or audition for the role of Bruce Wayne's butler, or pass beyond journeyman status in any trade. Does he not value recognized excellence? I presume he's not an heir presumptive of a Scottish peerage, nor does he aspire for a senior post in the Queen's household. Does he have any interest in the recording industry, I hear they do great things with old LPs these days to make them sound better. Perhaps he is musically inclined, there is a leader of the band job if he is. He could enlist in the navy, if he's not looking to get beyond an E-9. Regardless, I applaud gitlab for affording your friend the last venue of employment when the world and its derisive callousness collectively turns him away from his avocation. From development he may switch over to network and/or security, but better wait a few years. Those scoundrels still maintain a list of things that are denied, and things that are allowed, and your friend is probably not ready to know about them yet. To your friend!
By the way, does he have any possession? Any at all? He may be in for a surprise to discover how he himself is addressed. Break it to him gently, won't you?
If 4chan can cause an issue with the "OK" symbol, "main" should be easy for them to mess with. C and C++ will just have to change, along with street names and large water pipes.
I've had a conversation with this person on Twitter as well, and immediately blocked me for not being "good faith" while she casually throws around terms like "dirtbag left" and "those East Block country devs are caustic". I'm all for a more inclusive community, but spewing toxicity against a certain political ideology and using classicism in the process makes you a bigger problem than the piece itself imho.
You can't in good faith use quotation marks when the quoted thing was not said. The "dirtbag left" comment was already quoted, not written as-is, and the other tweet said:
"I’ve seen some impressively caustic stuff from that area at times."
Also you and other in this threads seem determined to use them as a scapegoat for all that happens around this joke.
I was definitely a _very_ late adopter of the program, but because it was so badly documented and seemingly dead even a few months ago I dropped it as well.
I use https://fly.io now for this purpose. It's not self-hosted, but it does the job for me :)
I'm really excited to share my sideproject again. If you guys have any questions I'd be more then willing to answer them, whether it's technical or related to Godot. Let me know!
Also big thanks to you guys last week, a bunch of you guys signed up on the beta, thank you so much!
It works really well actually, in the backend I compile a server version of a game, which exposes Godot's High Level Multiplayer API. On the other end you just need to connect to that server and it works! Most of the heavy lifting and the conceptual part is actually native Godot!
