> Why do you consider that a useful metric? Hit dogs holler, after all.
you do...
> The methods for influencing results within an organization exist on a spectrum, and failing to adequately utilize the breadth of that spectrum is always counter-productive.
Or did you have a different expectation for result in mind? The one you thought would be counter-productive without insults.
My assumption was that ark wanted to put support behind codeberg, and encourage others to take a critical look at how bad github has become, and to consider other options. Not rally additional support and defense of github's actions.
I haven’t actually used harsh language with anyone so I’m not sure what your point is. I have been on HN long enough to know that expressions of strong negative emotion are punished here. That says absolutely nothing about the effectiveness of different methods of influence within an organization.
I think if people are rallying to defend GitHub due to some language that ruffled their feathers and not objective technical merit then they have completely lost the plot as engineers.
As far as Andrew’s goals, I think he has been pretty successful within the framework of the attention economy.
I'm talking about the ideas, threads and conversations that are occupying the head space of others.
> then they have completely lost the plot as engineers.
I think most people who would call themselves software engineers have lost the plot of engineering.
That applies equally to those who are blind to the fact that engineering only exists to create stuff for humans. Most engineers are ignorant to the ability to consider the humans they're supposedly build for.
The point is to make shit better, not worse, and not more inhuman.
