Sweet. There is a similar community here https://github.com/hashbang/hashbang. They provide free shell accounts and I’m told their infrastructure runs on a combination of VPSes/dedicated servers.
I’m going to start this message the same as I am the Disroot one:
I’ve heard of them, and I’m pretty sure I have an account! It’s great that there are multiple communities in this space (Hashbang, Disroot, SDF, etc.), it fits perfectly into my philosophy that there should be many communities rather than single organizations serving tons of people.
It looks like Hashbang is pretty narrow-focused, though. They have shell, chat, and mail, whereas Asymptote’s focus is anything FLOSS that might be useful to a community, so much wider. Both philosophies have their merits, and I don’t believe that one is better than the other, but they’re certainly different.
I haven’t heard of hashbang.
The ones I am familiar with are freeshell and tilde.town.
tilde.town is less of a free shell/hosting provider and more of a social space, though. Asymptote/Hashbang/Disroot are different things to tilde.town.
Hi, the markup looks solid and neat.
Great job, thanks for posting!
I see the site is still being served via nginx.
~ curl -I https://lobste.rs
This is really bad for scalability and security. Please switch to apache with php-cgi.
Just putting this here after a brief conversation in IRC. Don’t think it counts but whatever.
By “are you using containers”, I assume you mean “are you using containers for developing/shipping an application in an isolated environment”, to which the answer is - I don’t. @pushcx did a good job explaining many reasons, I’d try to put it in my own words:
I find containers to be semantically broken for that purpose. What developers want is better and easier management of state/configuration, and I don’t see how putting all that non-managed state into a deeper room is the solution. How about we fix the problem where it exists instead of covering it under rugs and calling it a day.
Here is a crazy idea, which is probably never going to see life:
Lets standardize software configuration! One of my favorite examples of existing “configuration management” is the linux utility visudo. It is used to edit the /etc/sudoers configuration file. While you can just edit the file as it is, using visudo ensures that only one user is editing the file at once, does syntax checks on the file before it takes effect etc. Lets take this a bit further…
I’d like to see a configuration system (and not dbus or windows' registry) which lets me manage configuration files in plain text, and statically verifies that they will work. i.e., syntax checks, type checks, environment checks (eg. check if the same port is going to be used by multiple applications) etc. and when it catches errors, it should return useful error messages and probably hints on what to fix. We already have amazing static analysis for programming languages - why not configuration systems, which aren’t even turing complete? :)
You really need to provide some examples of those comments, because it can be really hard to tell the difference between comment quality actually dropping and people just wanting to say “back in my day this was awesome and now it sucks”.
Especially accusations of trolling need to be substantiated better because the word tends to be grossly overused.
I didn’t want to call anyone in particular out. But since you asked, here are some instances:
It seems just about every comment you linked was received with polite, but firm criticism/sensible answers, and didn’t end up spoiling the thread or the community’s view. Now while it’d be great to not have these comments at all, I think those examples actually show the bigger picture - the high maturity level of the people in community.
Perhaps the lobsters software should be able to track repeated troll attempts from a single user and raise an alert for moderators to step in. One thing I’ve experienced from moderation of a few communities is that it is generally better to accept more users cheaply, and have stricter rules to kick them out if/when they misbehave.
Amen. I agree, and this is why I don’t think censorship is needed.
Hacker News is heavily modded and it’s still a cesspool.
The best way to handle the problem of bad users is not to attract them in the first place. I think that we’re doing a good job of keeping the forum in a state that doesn’t attract the YC type.
You are such a prolific commentator here, that one of the explicit benefits of HN (compared to lobsters) is that you aren’t there.
[EDIT] I stand by what I said above, but @angersock is right, I probably could have expressed it better. Some clarification: https://lobste.rs/c/01bj1d
This is the sort of feedback that is best left to private messages, or that really requires further elaboration and generalization of principle in order to raise the level of discourse. Please consider either of those options in the future.
IMO, michaelochurch’s comments are a non-trivial portion of the low quality comments I’ve seen on lobsters. Virtually every single comment by him either insults entire classes of programmers with absurd generalizations or participates in revisionist history.
This is the sort of feedback that is best left to private messages
I generally agree. I’ve mostly stopped interacting with michaelochurch because all previous interactions have been remarkably negative. But if we’re going to participate in a meta discussion about the comment quality on lobsters, then it seems more than appropriate to air grievances.
While I don’t always agree with michaelochurch’s comments, and sometimes they’re only vaguely related to the parent post (which can be disruptive), I think he’s a valuable member of the community. He holds a minority opinion on a number of issues, but argues them in a thought-provoking way. I’d hate to see lobste.rs as a community push people out because of contrarian viewpoints.
I’d hate to see lobste.rs as a community push people out because of contrarian viewpoints.
I wonder if you’d actually walk the walk too.
Hm, I actually liked the “two types” of programmers comment made by michaelochurch and remember thinking “this guy can really write well”. It made me check out his blog and add it to my feed.
But maybe that’s because what he wrote down agrees with my opinion?
Virtually every single comment by him either insults entire classes of programmers with absurd generalizations or participates in revisionist history.
While we’re on the topic of quality content and all, it would be great if you could back up your claims by quoting something Michael said and telling us why he’s wrong (or why it’s reasonable to get “offended” or upset by it).
I provided links and have otherwise said enough. At this point, it’s up to folks to come to their own conclusions.
I didn’t see anything wrong with what Michael said in the comments you linked to, so you definitely haven’t said enough.
IMO, michaelochurch’s comments are a non-trivial portion of the low quality comments I’ve seen on lobsters.
Generally, I think this sort of stat-waving is in poor taste, but I have a higher average karma-per-comment than you do.
all previous interactions have been remarkably negative.
You made the first personal attack, not me.
[Comment removed by author]
This thread is bringing out some of the worst in our posters I’ve seen in a while–let’s not exacerbate things further.
Banning me from HN was part of a larger effort. They forced Quora (which YC bought) to ban me. On Reddit, they used to attack me heavily with sock puppets and brigades. Then I started getting the death threats, including harassment from homeless on the street (presumably paid off by YCs; it is a common tactic) when I was in the Bay Area. On one occasion, those assholes tried to get me fired.
I suppose you’re a fan of all that, too?
If you wonder what I did to piss them off, I wrote a blog post in 2013 where I used the term “chickenhawk” to describe VC’s attraction to inexperience founders. I never mentioned Paul Graham once in that context, and did not have him in mind, but he took the post to be about him, and the rest is history.
I’m sure, though, that you think you dislike me because you think for yourself and not because you’ve been told what to think by Paul Graham and his menagerie of boypets. Carry on, then.
If you wonder what I did to piss them off
You’ve conveniently left out some important details that might color one’s perspective. For an example of such a detail, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10017538
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.
I’d imagine the point was that you were warned by a mod to stop doing something and then banned after you kept doing it.
Either those posts were not in fact written by you (which would be consistent with your accusation that they are trying to get rid of you by any means necessary), or you broke the rules of their private space and got kicked out for it.
I’m not going to tell you they aren’t out to get you - I have every reason to believe PG would act like that - but the HN ban sure looks like more like regular old moderation than some kind of conspiracy.
The rules, to the extent that they can be argued to exist, are inconsistently enforced. People who point out that Silicon Valley has devolved into a pyramid scheme, and that Y Combinator is morally culpable to a large degree, are treated differently from people who aren’t perceived to represent a threat to Paul Graham’s economic or cultural interests.
They definitely know who I am. I have a couple sources inside Y Combinator (they’re not all bad people).
[ETA.] Oddly enough, Paul Graham isn’t as bad as he’s made out to be, and he’s been pretty much retired for close to 2 years. I wouldn’t call him a good person, but he’s not Hitler either. PG can be childish and vindictive, but the evil that YC is known for comes mostly from people under him.
They forced Quora (which YC bought) to ban me. On Reddit, they used to attack me heavily with sock puppets and brigades. Then I started getting the death threats, including harassment from homeless on the street (presumably paid off by YCs; it is a common tactic) when I was in the Bay Area. On one occasion, those assholes tried to get me fired.
What do you think would cause a diverse group of people across a number of sites to all attack you like that? They can’t handle the truth?
It wasn’t a diverse group of people. It was a small number of people (maybe five). Y Combinator owns Quora, which explains the ban.
The death threats could have come from anywhere, and although the Reddit brigade detected last April consisted of 45-70 accounts, it’s overwhelmingly likely in my mind that it was fewer than five people, working together and possibly in the same physical space (YC headquarters).
Of course, I don’t know for sure, but I know how these people fight. It’s more likely that a small number of people are doing bad things than that there is a large conspiracy.
What motivated them? It’s not that they “can’t handle the truth”. They know the truth. What they don’t want getting out there is how much of this current “startup” bubble is outright fraudulent, not only against employees and customers, but also against the institutional investors who provide the capital.
That is a crazy story.
The operative word here is crazy.
As if a blog post could do something like that.
At my peak, I got about 2,500 uniques per day. I had a low four-digit Alexa rank in the SF Bay Area.
I’ve pulled out of that game. I don’t care about this industry. I enjoy programming, but the tech industry can go to hell (who would know the difference?)
I certainly poked the bear, although I didn’t intend to provoke the specific response I got.
In July 2012, I wrote an essay called “Don’t waste your time in crappy startup jobs”. It got about 200,000 hits. That put me on Paul Graham’s radar and soon afterward he put me on “rank ban”, a Hacker News “feature” that would cause my comments to fall to the bottom no matter how many upvotes they got. It wasn’t until 2015 that Gack (the current moderator) admitted to this, but most people in-the-know were aware of it, and I wasn’t the only person affected by it.
It wasn’t a personal grudge, on Paul Graham’s end, until about a year later when I wrote this blog post. He thought “chickenhawk” was intended to refer to him. It wasn’t. I didn’t even have him in mind, to be honest. This is probably an exaggeration, coming from one of my sources inside YC, but I was told that after reading that essay, PG couldn’t even get out of bed for three days. At that point, the grudge was personal. Even though is essentially retired these days, he encouraged his puppies, Gack and Paul Buchheit, to attack me at every opportunity.
I was very active as a technology writer. I’ll admit that it took some effort to get the Paul Grahams of the world as pissed off as I did. It’s not something that you just fall into. What I didn’t expect is that these people would take a difference in economic and cultural interests and then try to spin it into something personal and vicious.
You’re omitting a few details. You were banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppeting, you were banned from Hacker News for calling Marissa Mayer the C-word, and you were banned from Quora for repeated sockpuppeting.
You’re omitting a few details. [.. snip ..]
Uh.. I totally understand why you posted that, and won’t call it out for being entirely unreasonable given the way this thread (unfortunately) went. So don’t take this personally.
But as a plea for the future, could we all please not dig up dirt on our community members? I really think it is one of the saddest things one can do here. And if we really have to judge somebody, then it should be based on their contribution here on lobsters. Not elsewhere, and definitely not over ten years ago elsewhere.
There are multiple reasons for this. Through such external sources, we catch a glimpse of community drama and claims without context, with no way to verify these claims, with no way to understand the background. No way to know who’s lying and who’s saying the truth. That community might be toxic, and toxicity often breeds toxicity. I admit, I can be quite toxic on the trollfest that slashdot is. And the past is past, people can change. I no longer participate on slashdot.
Along these lines, I can ascertain that when we have a nice friendly community here, then the people here are naturally encouraged to play along and be nice regardless of how they do elsewhere. That is what matters.
But when people come in and bring personal grudges and vendettas and dig up dirt, they bring in the toxin from these other communities. It evokes negative feelings and it hurts, and when it hurts, it is easy to forget what a nice community we have here. And so the poison spreads.
But as a plea for the future, could we all please not dig up dirt on our community members?
If you peruse this particular community member’s comments, you will note that he speaks frequently of his past interaction with various folks. It at least seems clear to me from his comments that he’s quite willing to discuss the past and his interaction with communities he’s been banned from. He may very well be telling the truth about many things (as you say, there’s no way to know), but one thing is very very clear: he omits critical details that are terribly inconvenient to his narrative. If he’s willing to talk about it, then adding additional context to what he’s saying seems absolutely fair to me.
one thing is very very clear: he omits critical details that are terribly inconvenient to his narrative.
I omit details that are irrelevant, regardless of whether they are favorable or not. It’s not like I post, “I’ve received death threats from YC partners” at every opportunity, because who cares? What would I gain from that? I come here to read and talk about technology, not this sort of shit.
I don’t talk about this stuff except when asked or provoked. The record shows that you, not me, are the one who turned this thread into a personal-attack-driven shitshow. And you owe an apology to the Lobsters community for doing it.
And you owe an apology to the Lobsters community for doing it.
As I said, I could have expressed myself better. I never intended for anything I said to be a personal attack, but I can absolutely see how I came across that way. For that, I apologize to you. My intent was to express how unfavorably I view your contributions to this web site. Intent doesn’t count for much, but there it is.
In any case, I’ve learned from my mistake. This will be the last time I respond to you on this web site.
In general I agree with you, but in this case I was responding to a comment in which Church claims he was banned from HN and Quora as part of a larger conspiracy against him (that includes YC paying the homeless to harass him). When someone makes a claim like that, I feel like I need to point out there were several clear reasons for why he was banned.
“Point[ing] out” things that aren’t actually true isn’t a public service. It’s annoying and, frankly, you aren’t very convincing or talented at it.
You were banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppeting,
That user’s hate page was debunked a long time ago. Most of those accounts don’t even exist. Granted, I did some stupid shit on Wikipedia back in 2004. Just not that.
you were banned from Hacker News for calling Marissa Mayer the C-word
Not true. I used a different word, “queynte”, specifically because some people consider “cunt” to be a gender slur when applied to a woman. The best translation of “queynte” would be “ornament”, not “crude term for vagina”.
you were banned from Quora for repeated sockpuppeting.
I am aware of that being their stated reason. However, those sock puppet accounts didn’t exist.
Back when I had an active blog, Marc Bodnick posted a comment putting the blame on Paul Buchheit who demanded it. Paul Buchheit denied it. I don’t know who’s responsible for that. What I do know is that Marc Bodnick got fired a few months later, because Adam D'Angelo specifically blamed his moderation for the collapse in user engagement and comment quality.
Please find a way either to become more intelligent, or to become more graceful in apologizing for what you currently are.
What does that mean?
I’d agree that the number of bad comments has gone up, but I’m not sure that the S:N has gotten worse.
polite, but firm criticism/sensible answers, and didn’t end up spoiling the thread
We have quite a low quantity of BS, so it’s relatively low-effort to refute (which keeps the place nice).
There’s a threshold beyond which people stop being willing to invest time doing that.
accept more users cheaply, and have stricter rules to kick them out if/when they misbehave
My only concern with this approach (which works well in genereal) is that the failure mode is collapse (when e.g. a key moderator is absent for a few months and there isn’t suitable handover).
If that were our approach, I think it would become important to recruit a larger pool of moderators to reduce this risk.
Disclaimer: I’m one of the word-criminals listed above.
I pointed out what I consider to be an obvious fact - that Common Lisp itself is not very practical, but didn’t want to go through the effort of trying to convince people of it. For example because if it’s not obvious to someone, he probably wouldn’t be amenable to convincing either.
Someone who’s never considered CL impractical but does have an open mind, might benefit from seeing the idea, in case it led to him investigating and reaching the same conclusion himself.
It seems just about every comment you linked was received with polite, but firm criticism/sensible answers, and didn’t end up spoiling the thread or the community’s view.
Yes, someone asked the reasonable question: “Why?”, and someone else provided a great answer.
All in all, which would you say caused a greater disturbance to Lobste.rs’s peace & harmony: my comment, or this thread? It could be argued that whoever started this thread is sowing discord!
The thing is, we all interpret quality content and whether an article “belongs here” in different ways. Lobste.rs itself can reasonably be found highly lacking in greatness, even if it is better than HN in some ways.
So, to summarize those examples for people that don’t want to follow links:
With the possible exception of the first comment, those all seem like reasonable comments to me and are not particularly trollish (compared with, say, this or some of yui’s stuff.
I think something worth considering is the content of articles all of those comments were in reply to: we need to all remember that a bad submission (like somebody deciding to kill themselves, or spamming pretty drawings, or public policy news) will usually breed bad comments, either asking “why is this here on lobsters?” or failing to have useful content for discussion.
In short, if you submit garbage, don’t be surprised if you attract flies.
bad submission (like somebody deciding to kill themselves, or spamming pretty drawings, or public policy news)
I wouldn’t call any of those submissions bad. News about tech industry’s culture affecting people’s mental state, public policy related to tech and other “meta” articles are relevant to lobste.rs, in my opinion. The pretty drawings in question were educational and about tech. Although I didn’t necessarily like some of those submissions, they’re still on-topic.
those all seem like reasonable comments to me and are not particularly trollish
IMO, not all low quality comments are trolls. I agree with the OP that comments like the ones linked are nearly content free, and I find it disappointing that they’re appearing on lobsters with increasing frequency. I don’t have any good solutions, unfortunately. Ideally, we as a group would discourage those sorts of comments from existing in the first place. Perhaps @nickpsecurity is right in that the only other choice is heavier moderation, but I don’t really like that choice either. sigh
Three of them aren’t content free though–they are meta comments on the submission. There is a place for such comments and unfortunately they are necessary if we want the community to self regulate properly.
Perhaps the increase in bad comments you are seeing is due to an increase in bad submissions?
Im pushing two: careful who you invite to point you audit prior comments or behavior (approximates friend-to-friend model); heavier moderation if discouraging specific behaviors that persist. I think the invites arent usually handled like in the first. Many were casting a wide net.
I personally put sub-par comments that spark good discussions into a different category
I think this is important. There are so many ways a sub-par comment that on its own contributes nothing can lead to very fruitful or informative discussion that is worth having, and quite likely would not be had if it were not for that comment. Sometimes, these little comments can even seem a little trollish or otherwise inflammatory. That is one way to spark discussion; perhaps it is not perceived to be a good way, but it can be very effective. Of course there is no way to know in advance what such a thread will turn into.
I disagree, given that the brevity of such comments is usually more likely to produce misunderstandings and hostility than creative discussion. Additionally, the brevity of such comments increases the odds that any subsequent discussion is likely to be less topical because of lost context.
Sure, we get occasional gems, but the aggregate effect is always going to be junk commentary and poor decorum.
The negative effect of lack of context is important. I overlooked that in my response. It does usually result in people talking past each other until the “real” point comes out. Happened to me here a few times.
Therefore best to write at least enough of a comment that claim and context are clear. This might be worth becoming a guideline at some point.
This seems to happen most when the comment represents a common misconception that many other readers might have. On HN, I often give a detailed counter with evidence and upvote the comment so corrected information reaches that commenter and others reading along. I also upvote the correct ones past it. Can’t recall how much I do it on Lobsters.
The idea being that just filtering out very different views doesnt make them go away. In absence of correcting feedback, misinformation remains with self-reinforcement and more gets built on it. Im still undecided on best strategy here but think it’s worthwhile keeping and countering low-value comments reflectinh misconceptions if person’s other comments were decent.
OK, I’m a newcomer here
Are you also this “hga”? https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hga who was recently banned?
Jews are to be “excluded if not eliminated from society”, as in all societies that are not Israel. You’ve got your own homeland now, which we of the Alt West fully support, relocate yourself there.
is also correct, and prompted a discussion I at least think is worthwhile,
I vehemently disagree with that characterization. The OP posted a useless comment. Of what use to others is to state conclusion without an argument or observation so the we can reach our conclusions? Then ssl appears to have attempted to use the maieutic approach to teach the OP about the importance of backing up your conclusions. At which point you derailed the discussion posting a bunch of incorrect statements that because they take more time and effort to refute normally go unchallenged.
Furthermore I see no good discussion that sparked from it.
Some of the real goodies are on the Changes for Developers page. Things that will immediately fill holes are:
That entire page is worth a quick read :)
A simple proof of concept chrome extension which skips the standard copy route itself to avoid this: https://github.com/awalGarg/realcopy
Note: User rain1 from chat suggested testing it on https://thejh.net/misc/website-terminal-copy-paste where it didn’t work. That site uses CSS to hide the actual selected text instead. The extension above however shows what you copied so it might still work for you anyways.
Edit: Also note that it puts the copied text in a textarea (separate from webpage context) so you can edit something if you like. Now I am actually thinking of using it, but needs an FF port :P
Considering a project (and possibly looking for collaborators):
I use stagit1 for personal project hosting (and github as social media but that’s irrelevant to this). I find stagit to be simple and minimal. Does the job. Does one thing and does it well. But I miss issues and PRs. Allowing collaboration from other people is pretty much impossible (asked people to format-patch, anyone?). So I am thinking of creating a “bundle” project which uses stagit and some mailing list software that allows anyone with his own vps and an ip/domain to quickly setup a github like personal project host with patches and discussion over emails with a public mailing list. So people won’t have to “register” to everyone’s site for contributing or opening an issue (which is mostly what keeps people from moving out of github or any other centralized service). They’d just use emails. If we can keep things consistent enough, it could offer the consistency of Github (or other hosts) while getting the decentralization of git back. Add some light css (see http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/) and people wouldn’t find it dull or boring either.
Thoughts? Anyone feels like collaborating? Am I missing something crucial?
Edit: Just realized that this thread might be more about already accomplished/started things and not made up ideas. Apologies if this is offtopic for the thread.
It really looks like you’re describing Phabricator here (code reviews, issues, discussions, git hosting, simple design, simple hosting…), you should check that too.
+1 phabricator. used it at my old job.
don’t hesitate to … ask for help, advice or other guidance
Almost definitely not off topic :-)
I’m busy with exams right now, but this is something I’d be interested in following & possibly contributing to in the future :)
But I miss issues and PRs
Google has a project where they abuse git-notes as a code review tool. Maybe something similar can be done for issues?
Or maybe we should all just realise that what we really should be using is fossil-scm.
That is really clever. It seems like making a new GitHub repo for it will be a necessary evil though ;)
Thanks. It is maybe clever eyesight, not a clever idea in itself because git was meant to be used that way only.
Why would this require a GitHub repo?
I feel like that would be a better place than Lobsters to pool ideas and find out who wants to participate.
This looks like something I’d find pretty useful for https://eigenstate.org and https://myrlang.org.
At the moment, I mirror my code on github, and use their bugs/issues.
Definitely interested in this. Got a repo for it yet?