> In general I prefer if people keep their politics out of IT infrastructure.
Fine, then go somewhere else and don't use Codeberg. Your criticism is part of bringing politics into this. It's about freedom and choice. You have the choice to go somewhere else, nobody is forcing you.
Quoting myself: "That said, I don't have a problem with this particular project. It's absolutely fine to create a git hosting solution specifically for open source..."
> It's only a great alternative if you believe GitHub deserves to die
Geez, why so extreme? They choose whom they support for free, and they choose FLOSS projects with similar goals/philosophies. If your project has a different philosophy, fine, up to you, but it's not something they want to spend their time to support for free. You are welcome to go somewhere else, including going to or staying at GitHub.
Nobody wants anything "to die". It's about providing alternatives for people who are not entirely happy. If you are, fine, nobody forces you to anything. Just like you can't force the Codeberg people to provide something to you for free which they are not comfortable with.
You ask 'why so extreme'. What mostly riles me up about some 'foss movement' people is the fact that some of them think they're morally superior. In cases like the poster I replied to it seemed obvious and I point out what his ethics actually mean in the end. Perhaps it will make him think.
Honestly, it never works to get people to listen to what you have to say if you do it in a self-righteous, condescending, and abrasive manner. They just write you off as a jerk and it reinforces their belief that people who don't agree with them are unpleasant.
You could almost certainly pay to host non-open source projects on Codeberg. It happens to be that the price is unlisted, though (and it's probably higher than what you or anyone else would want to spend, anyway).
I don't understand the purpose of this comment. It strikes me as a nonsequitur. How does it conform to the logical throughline of the previous two comments?
All good advice. I especially agree with the first line as a solid foundation. As long as you don't sleep well, forget the rest. And as long as you don't exercise regularly, the regular sleep will be much harder.
One thing I'd add though is: A tidy mind. Clean up your thoughts. If there is something you don't understand or that seems inconsistent, seek understanding instead of just ignoring it. Of course you need some tradeoff, but too many people just live with constant chaos in their heads and BS-tting they way through life. By extension, your surroundings shape your thoughts. A somewhat tidied up apartment, clean kitchen sink and bathroom/toilet, fridge, desk, hard disk, inbox, those things work wonders. Doesn't have to be spotless, but chaos just distracts and creates overhead that can make you miserable.
(Obviously, some chaos sparks creativity, but there is a difference it a big box with assorted "creative" items versus not finding things on your desk because of all the crap on it.)
How do your scifi stories solve social issues like the breakdown of civilization following events like civil wars caused by events like the Capitol storming?
In other words, isn't the threat to the human species mostly within itself, and finding solutions to those issues much more impactful (and attainable) than dreaming of building such fantasy structures?
Aside from the realization that society wouldn't work differently on Mars either. Look around you. The fraction of idiots in a society on Mars is unlikely to be lower than here on Earth.
"In other words, isn't the threat to the human species mostly within itself, and finding solutions to those issues much more impactful (and attainable) than dreaming of building such fantasy structures?"
Society will break down, once there is no more hope.
Good sci-fi stories, like a colonisation of mars (like in the mars trilogy from Kim Stanley Robinsons) gives people hope, that a different world is possible, therefore (helping) preventing that breakdown in the first place.
This is the reason, why so many otherwise smart people ignored reality and signed up for Mars One for example. It is the dream of having the chance to start over in a clean way.
"The fraction of idiots in a society on Mars is unlikely to be lower than here on Earth. "
And when you have colonists with that altruistic mindset, then yes - the idiot rate of that society has the potential to be significantly lower. This is why people would sign up for one way tickets - exactly to get away from the idiots here on earth.
But yes, a real mars colony is very far away and would likely stay a hellhole for a long time, until either terraforming becomes realistic, or big domes, that protect enough from radiation, but gives people freedom to move in sunlight.
No one wants to go to mars, to become a mole in a bunker, even though this is what the beginning most likely will be. It is the dreams, that attract us Mars enthusiast. I would argue, if there would be more people dreaming, instead of mindlessly watching netflix over and over, there would be a better chance to make those dreams real. Also here on earth.
I completely agree. That functional style actually favors readability and maintainability is a quite strong claim which I read often but it's usually lacking evidence.
In my experience, software engineers "think" imperatively. First do this, then do that. That's what we do in everyday life (open a random cooking book..) and that's also what the CPU does, modulo some out-of-order and pipelining tricks. A declarative style adds some extra cognitive load upfront. With training you may get oblivious to that, but in the end of the day, the machine does one thing after the other, and the software engineer wants to make it do that. So, either you express that more "directly" in an imperative style, or try to come up with a declarative style which may or may not be more elegant, but that this ends up more readable or maintainable is on the functional proponents to prove.
Maybe we have different mental models and that’s what drives this conflict? I certainly wouldn’t say that first do this then do that is my primary mental model, in small blocks yes, but once you get past even 1 file that breaks down. Once you introduce threads or the network these assumptions have to go out the window anyways.
It’s funny you mention recipes, because i’ve always been frustrated by traditional recipe descriptions that muddle concurrency and make it difficult to conceptualize the whole process. E.g. the table structure here is superior to step by step http://www.cookingforengineers.com/recipe/158/Dark-Chocolate...
The network is the prime example for forcing serialization of events.
Tbf, I agree with the recipe criticism. Would be neat with a dependency graph instead of a step-by-step list of things to do when baking a cake. Would have saved me a lot of headache in the past. (The table in your link expresses a tree, which is probably sufficient for most purposes.)
> In my experience, software engineers "think" imperatively
I hear this often. In the past the claim used to be that they "think" object-oriented. This is a thinly veiled argumentum ad naturam.
> ... on the functional proponents to prove
Prove your own claims before you demand proofs from other people. And by prove I mean really rigorous thinking, not just superficially seeking confirmation for the things you already believe either way.
Not necessarily. If the current "default" is imperative, then the burden of proof is on the functional advocates, because they're the ones advocating for change.
Burden of proof is very relevant if neither side gave an argument.
People are doing A. Someone says "Do B instead!". "Why should we do B?" "Well, why should you do A?" At the end of that extremely unproductive exchange, what are people going to do, A or B? They're going to keep doing A, because they were already doing that, and nobody gave them any actual reason to change.
So "burden of proof" isn't meant in the sense of this being a formal debate, with rules. It means that, when ahf8Aithaex7Nai said "Prove your own claims before you demand proofs from other people", that ahf8Aithaex7Nai is wrong. OOP is the current default in terms of the bulk of professional programming; if FP advocates want that to change, it's on the FP advocates to provide reasons, not on the OOP advocates to prove the correctness of the status quo.
Right the status quo works. Computers are serving us. The only question of course is whether rigorous adaptation of FP would make them work even better.
The proponents of status quo only need to prove that the existing approach works and is useful. And I think that is proven already by the very existence of status quo. It wouldn't be there if it wasn't somehow useful.
Fine, then go somewhere else and don't use Codeberg. Your criticism is part of bringing politics into this. It's about freedom and choice. You have the choice to go somewhere else, nobody is forcing you.