1. 1

    I think indie humble bundle really made a huge difference in Linux gaming. They were able to show in concrete numbers that Linux users were perfectly willing to spend money on games. Every since the first few FOSS bundles more and more developers have been going out of their way to make ports.

    1. 18

      In which @itamarst reads a pop-sci book and dishes out advice based on it with little evidence to support it.

      But a few more serious thoughts:

      1. The opening creates a pleasant fairy tale but one should be distrustful of it. Your manager probably isn’t doing so great if your project is in that situation. But maybe you aren’t so hot either. It’s hard to know the difference. Just saying any arbitrary situation, the problem is the manager stinks and the programmer isn’t working smart is ridiculous.
      2. Some projects just require a lot of work no matter how smart you want to work. There are plenty of causes for a situation where the problem simply requires a lot of hours. Maybe hiring failed, maybe the scope is large. But you can’t just “work smarter” out of any situation and just because something requires a lot of time doesn’t mean you’re fixed mindset.

      I believe this is another blog post taking a complicated situation, lossily simplifying it, and dishing out B-grade advice based on the simplification.

      1. 7

        You’re right on all counts, but I still think developers need to put their collective foot down and refuse to work unpaid overtime. Tired programmers are as prone to mistakes as tired workers in any other trade or industry; the main difference is that a tired factory worker might get himself or others hurt or killed, whereas a tired developer might commit a “clever hack” that ends up leaking PII for millions of unsuspecting users after a year or two in production.

        1. 6

          Clarification: Are you against overtime or unpaid overtime? Because even if I’m getting paid for overtime, I can still commit the mistake you stated.

          1. 6

            If companies have to pay for over time, they will be (in theory anyways) less likely to make their workers work over time, and will instead have some actual planning and project management in place so working 12 hours straight is not needed.

            1. 4

              I’m against unpaid overtime. Making all waged and salaried work by non C-suite workers eligible for overtime pay might deter some managers from allowing/persuading/gaslighting/bullying/coercing/etc workers to do OT, though the current time-and-a-half rate might not be sufficient to serve as a deterrent. Triple pay for OT might be better.

              If not, and my boss is ignorant enough to take that kind of risk and incur that sort of cost, then I’m not going to say no to more money.

              1. 6

                I’m against overtime, it causes problems that need to be cleaned up. It’s as dumb as throwing bodies at the problem.

            2. 3

              No matter how much work something requires, it doesn’t need to force people to work long hours; they can just do it slower.

              1. 3

                If you work in a production based environment with deadlines, the amount of work you have is directly correlated with how many orders the sales team racks up, and you can very easily end up having to work long hours from necessity to meet the demand and deadlines. Many industries also have off seasons and busier times, especially those that deal with schools or taxes.

                1. 3

                  Can you explain why software development timelines need to follow academic or fiscal schedules?

                  1. 3

                    Software development in a business setting is all about keeping other people’s promises.

                    1. 1

                      Yeah, I get that. If sales people are promising new functionality by a certain date then there’ll be pressure to build it by then. And I can now see why the school calendar could matter. What I’m not getting is why tax season makes a difference.

                      1. 3

                        Some software changes are necessitated by tax law changes or other external deadlines. I’m working on one right now.

                        1. 2

                          Because tax laws change over time, so if you’re writing software that is dealing with something that got changed by your government with a given deadline, you’re going to have to deal with it by said deadline, or face whatever consequences come from not being in compliance with said law.

                          A big one in the past few years was all the changes related to the Affordable Care Act in the US. It isn’t that every year brings a change like this (to my current knowledge), but they are a thing with real external deadline pressure.

              1. 19

                The best way to combat this is to not answer the questions for password reset at all. Use a password manager, and when a company asks something like “what was the name of your favorite teacher” give an answer like “zod the destroyer 7899” and never mention or tell anyone about this. Even if someone knows your favorite teacher, it won’t help them.

                1. 3

                  I generate all the answers with my password manager too - and don’t re-use them between systems. It’s a bit of a pain to generate them but they’re not often asked for and I don’t want to have to inform my mother her maiden name is part of a data breach.

                  1. 3

                    Unfortunately you do need to be a bit careful with this. It’s possible (however dumb) that these answers are stored in plaintext and then presented to the user either as-is (multiple choice) or partially obscured (complete this name).

                    If an attacker is trying to get through the reset process and are confronted with “What’s your mother’s maiden name? a) Jones, b) Smith or c) F32djsb/.$%” they might have better than 1-in-3 odds :-)

                    1. 2

                      I’m partial to being born somewhere like: Earth Sol System Orion Minor Galactic Arm Milky Way Galaxy

                      And my favorite pet sometimes has ended up being something like: Leeloominai ekatariba tchai ekbat de sebat

                      And favorite colors being Steve.

                      I just plug all that crap into my password manager so that all my random “copy something from an open webpage” answers don’t go away.

                      1. 1

                        I do this (except the answers are randomly generated) and it turns out it mostly doesn’t matter. I’ve had to call services that use them and talk to customer service representatives. They’ve asked me the questions, along with other identifying information, and I told them that I didn’t know the answer. All I said was that it was probably random junk. They just ignored it and continued to deal with my problem.

                        What’s even more interesting is that rep on the phone would admonish me for forgetting the answer, telling me that they ask these things for my own security. It didn’t seem to register, even after I mentioned it, that it obviously doesn’t since I just bypassed them.

                        1. 1

                          A number of sites now do “identity verification” through (I believe) the credit agencies, where they’ll ask you questions about previous addresses based on the records those agencies have–not based on answers you provided yourself at any point.

                          1. 2

                            Yeah but that costs money and it still doesn’t fix the problem because your previous addresses can be know by the attacker.

                            1. 2

                              Right, my point was that it’s not enough to use fake answers to security questions, because the real answers (at least regarding previous addresses) are still useful to attackers against these identity verification systems.

                            2. 1

                              Not that you nor I can do anything about it here and now, but that practice should be heavily discouraged. The whole point of security questions is to answer stuff only I know. Which also makes 90% of the currently available choices (“Mother’s maiden name”, “First pet”, etc.) really poor choices. Allow me to make my own question and answer, and it should improve handily for some people, whereas people who fall back to the default questions are no worse off.

                            1. 1

                              Ugh, I searched and didn’t see it. Thanks.

                              1. 1

                                Yup, no problem.

                            1. 12

                              The spirit of free software is what, exactly? Developers have to produce whatever users want?

                              Perhaps we need a new spirit: if you get something for free and you don’t like it, stop using it.

                              1. 4

                                The ‘spirit of free software’ here is more like ‘don’t hijack an existing project in order to trade on its good name, by inserting nefarious code’. A basic social obligation that makes things like package managers work - it means that I don’t have to vet every update of every package I use, because we have social norms. I know that (though there are caveats) eg if something has made it into ‘Main’ or ‘Universe’ on Ubuntu and then this happens, everyone involved will be permabanned. If it is in a PPA and this happens, whoever maintains the PPA will take a massive reputational hit, and depending on how they handle it they may be ostracised.

                                1. 3

                                  One might rephrase that as “don’t be a dick” and I think it applies just as much to decent proprietary software. Open source is a development model, not a mystic cult, and we should remember that.

                                  I actually think there’s a lesson here about blind trust and the million eyeballs. Don’t assume that you are eyeball number 1000001.

                                  And an apparent failure of package management in atom. As you say, with PPA somebody should vet changes. Who vetted this update for atom?

                                  1. 2

                                    ‘The person with the PPA’ is in this analogy the maintainer of the package; what I am saying is that Kite in general and @abe33 (Cédric Néhémie) in particular should be considered bad actors; permabanned and ostracised from the entire open source community - any packages they take over should be forked, any pull requests they make should be rejected. I for one know that if I ever find out they touched something it is going to go on my ‘untrusted’ list, and if they are part of any projects I am part of I will use whatever influence I have to remove them, and I would hope that everyone else follows suit.

                                    “Don’t be a dick” isn’t a useful rephrase at all. The point is that there are (admittedly fuzzy at times) social contracts that allow open source to work as such at all; one of the really base level ones is to not insert underhanded stuff in ‘known good’ packages. If minimap had been openly adware from day one, it would not have been a violation of this rule. The point of the rule being that you shouldn’t have to maintain constant vigilance over every package you use - you should be able to validate it essentially once based off of a combination of what it is marketed as plus its reputation plus things like whether it is in any of the core package repositories of major distributions, and if its maintainers abuse this then they should suffer (at least) permanent reputational damage.

                                    Proprietary software is several different kettles of fish - but none of them are reputation economies in the same way as open source is, and with most of them the concept of a user who curates their own distribution is gibberish. Scale, bundling, and volition mostly work quite differently between open source and proprietary as well. So, it is not really helpful to say that this point applies to proprietary software.

                                    1. 1

                                      I really don’t see how this is any different than something like sublimetext auto updating and doing something unsavory.

                                      1. 1

                                        It is different because proprietary software (and the related ecosystem) is a different thing to open source software (and the related ecosystem).

                                        A few of the relevant differences:

                                        • If a piece of proprietary software did that, the remedy is usually that they get sued, or there is a settlement. For open source software the remedy is usually community censure and forking.
                                        • Auditing proprietary software is largely not a thing, with some very minor exceptions. Auditing open source software is the reverse.
                                        • Proprietary software is all about having somewhere between no agency and very minor agency - in enterprise systems, and in practice for a lot of home users you don’t really have a choice about most of the software you have installed; the most agency you get is a choice whether you install or not, and even then you often have to take the choice monolithically. With open source software, you should typically have a lot more agency.

                                        These kinds of differences are why talking about the social contract that allows open source to work (as such) makes sense, and why that social contract is quite different from the one that allows proprietary software to work (as such).

                                2. 1

                                  if you get something for free and you don’t like it, stop using it.

                                  or better yet, branch it and fix it. I’d be stunned if this hadn’t happened within hours of the first adverts appearing. if the branch falls behind on features, then users get to choose their poison. this is the spirit of open source, at least.

                                  1. 1

                                    The spirit of free software is what, exactly? Developers have to produce whatever users want?

                                    The spirit of free software is that it respects the users. Free software means users can edit and redistribute code. They contribute back to free software projects as a way to pay back what they have received. If you take over a free software project and make changes in order to promote your own company, that is against the spirit of the venture. You aren’t adding a feature that helps other people, you aren’t fixing a bug, you aren’t adding value to something that other people put time and effort into, and giving out the same quality and respect that you gained from the other developer’s time and efforts. You are just basically spamming people who had the decency to not do that to you.

                                    It’s not technically against the license to do that, but it’s disrespectful to all the people who have contributed and disrespectful to the users of the software. Just imagine if everyone who contributed to FOSS started adding in links back to their companies.

                                  1. 1

                                    I wonder what are the liability risks in developing and making openly available such a system/platform. Given how litigious medical practice is, I wonder if someone could sue if a bug in this synthetic pancreas causes serious harm or death. I would expect to be able to do it if I was using a commercial product and I would expect that a free and open source replica would be covered under the same FDA guidelines for medical devices safety.

                                    Said in other words, does offering a free and open source medical device exclude you from medical liability?

                                    1. 4

                                      They aren’t selling a medical device. People are choosing to connect their insulin pump to a glucometer with a pi and using this woman’s software to facilitate how those two things communicate. In order to do this you have to have an understanding of the technology involved. The only person liable is yourself who choose to use a DIY solution. At least until laws are made to address questions of the place DIY medical devices have.

                                      To be honest though, the risk of uncontrolled diabetes far outweighs whatever risk there is using these devices and no matter what diabetics have to have a backup way to check their blood sugar and keep insulin and glucose on hand for emergencies. I have a diabetic alert dog that helps me to manage my diabetes, but its still incredibly hard to keep blood sugar in a very narrow range.

                                      DIY medical devices help make things more affordable and accessible to the disabled who often don’t have thousands of dollars to spend giving money to a company. Then to top everything off, you can’t see what the company’s medical device is made from or what the software looks like. I would much prefer to see the software in a pace maker or insulin pump than use something with hidden source code that I can’t change to match my own circumstances or that might have security issues which will never be updated and fixed. Like seriously, how often do you think the software in a pace maker is updated?

                                    1. 3

                                      Boot camps have no quality control. Literally anyone can start up a programming boot camp and there is no accreditation or licensing for them. They have the same academic standards of Trump university. I’m shocked they didn’t start dying out sooner as more people realized they aren’t really worth what people charge.

                                      1. 6

                                        This story is brave, perhaps, but at it’s core it’s about a non-technical person sleeping with another non-technical person for non-technical reasons.

                                        This isn’t a good fit here, and was already covered extensively at HN.

                                        1. 3

                                          I disagree. It is about something that happens commonly in tech startup culture. Not just with people trying to get investment money, but also with contractors or hiring new people or even company culture. It is very common in tech to have meetings at bars and I think the implications of this should be discussed.

                                          1. 3

                                            It is about something that happens commonly in tech startup culture.

                                            That was the main purpose of HN at one point. Still is for the most part. You’ll find articles like this regularly along with all kinds of comments and links on there. Plus be able to reach founders since many read the site.

                                            Better to keep Lobsters focused more on tech to reduce noise like with recent threads on politics. I don’t downvote or flag these per my current stance on censorship but surely don’t upvote them.

                                        1. 2

                                          I think the problem with this is that everyone defines hostile and abusive differently. There would have to be a clear definition of what this is. It might also help if it was possible to show voting histories of people so there is more transparency and over sight.

                                          1. 1

                                            I agree. See also the discussion of better alternatives further up.

                                          1. 4

                                            Does anyone know if its possible to actually verify that this survey is run by mozilla? I have seen them do things like this before where they use google docs or survey monkey without any way to actually verify the information is going to them and not just some rando using their logo.

                                            1. 11

                                              As a new member I would appreciate these things to be written down elsewhere as well. I tend to read all I can find in about / submit rules etc. There isn’t a page that describes what kind of community you want to be and what the “rules” are. It’s al assumed that you know before you join, which I guess with coming up to 8000 members doesn’t scale anymore. So instead of telling people off for something that you, the collective you, think people should know. Post it somewhere to which you can refer to. Makes things a lot easier IMHO. ;)

                                              1. 15

                                                A workflow would be a great compromise. Facebook does this pretty well when reporting posts, e.g. “This post is about me” or “This post is about someone else” and “This post is threatening me” or “This post is threatening someone else”.

                                                Maybe instead of Lobsters offering these short labels, the options could be worded as such:

                                                • This comment is unrelated to the original post or anything else in this thread.
                                                • This comment is factually or logically incorrect in a blatantly obvious way.
                                                • This comment adds no value to the thread beyond expressing “me, too” in some way.
                                                • This comment is inflammatory or baiting an argument with no intention of encouraging honest discussion.
                                                • This comment is adds no value, contains only an irrelevant link, is low-effort, or commercial in nature
                                                1. 6

                                                  I am strongly in favour of these longer labels. They are better than the single words at expressing the spirit of the sort of things we-the-community want downvoted.

                                                  I especially like this one: it is a lot clearer than ‘Troll’, and it looks robust to both too-narrow or too-wide interpretation.

                                                  ◾This comment is inflammatory or baiting an argument with no intention of encouraging honest discussion.

                                                  1. 4

                                                    The ‘intention’ aspect could be removed by phrasing this slightly differently: “This comment is inflammatory or baiting an argument, and does not encourage honest discussion”

                                                2. 3

                                                  Maybe a tooltip to hover over when you see one which explains what it means. I was struggling to work out what me too was about

                                                  1. 2

                                                    There was a request for rules to be posted with a discussion here: https://lobste.rs/s/oackyq/lobsters_community_standards and a community created document here: https://github.com/meskarune/lobsters-constitution

                                                    Nothing ever came of it, but personally I would really like to see a page with guidelines and site etiquette, if only to help new people jump in and get used to the culture here quickly.

                                                  1. 4

                                                    For people who haven’t seen the previous news stories on this:

                                                    Women Entrepreneurs Speak Out Against Sexual Harassment

                                                    Shedding Light on the Black Box of Inappropriateness

                                                    The author of the post discusses how most meetings with investors happen late at night in bars, for both men and women, and how this can blur the lines between personal and business meetings with people possibly having different expectations. She also talks about her own actions which may have helped validate a culture of male investors propositioning women who are trying to get funding for their companies, and the pressure on these women to comply so they can make it in the industry. I think this was an incredibly hard thing for her to come out and discuss, and I think looking at all sides of how a cultural norm forms is a good thing if you want to try and change it.

                                                    1. 4

                                                      I hate slack because its proprietary, its a solution for a problem that was already solved, and you have to have new user accounts for every organization and a new tab open for each chat which eats up ram on my computer.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        There were other systems that had the same featurelist as Slack, but the UX was always awful.

                                                      1. 5

                                                        I really like seeing things like this written in non-mainstream languages. There is always something to learn just reading the code.

                                                        1. 63

                                                          The disturbing thing about these writups, similar to original post at Github, is they always talk about how she gets all this hate just because she’s a minority or something. They never mention how she aggressively pushes politics into every space she can and has a Code of Conduct designed to enable censorship of political opponents (main thing she pushes). I encourage anyone that doubts how vicious she and her crowd are to read the entire Opal thread:

                                                          https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

                                                          It’s a plainer-than-usual example of the political strategy she wants enforced in every company and FOSS project. So, there’s a project without any actual problems happening with just a few people doing most contributions. She asks it eject one of it’s major contributors because he makes a probably anti-transgender comment on Twitter while being peaceful within the project. Maintainer “meh” says who cares what they do in their spare time: it’s irrelevant to the project, things are civil in the project’s operation, and they’ll deal with anything like that if it happens in the project. This is not acceptable because Coraline and friends’ political philosophy w/ enforcing Code of Conducts say nobody can ever do something their political group disagrees with (finds offensive) in any forum. If they ever violate Coraline et al’s political decree, then they are to be forced into compliance or ejected everywhere. Also, a huge number of people in groups they claim to benefit disagree with them, have no say in the matter, and will be censored too.

                                                          That’s pretty extreme far as politics goes. More extreme and sickening was that a few then set the socially-inept maintainer up to look like a supporter of child molestation at some point in the comments. This is the kind of stuff Coraline is associated with in her war on people who disagree with her politics and to eliminate them from the public Internet with mandated rules. This is why she gets extremely, negative reactions. She deserves them for bullying people or forcing specific rules favoring specific types of people pretending to be truly inclusive. When the filtering or trolling comes, she writes as if nothing like this has ever happened with her merely being of a marginalized group or just trying to help people in some implicitly, acceptable way being what causes everything.

                                                          Not a chance. I fight this crap, esp her political CoC, any time I see it. If you want real equality-focused activism, you need to look at people more like MLK than Al Sharpton. One risked (and lost) it all tried to benefit all people with fairness tolerance with a lot of focus on his own group (shrugs). One maintains fame or fortune trying to benefit one type of people in particular with no regard for fairness or tolerance. Coraline is more like the latter. She should putting it in her posts if she isn’t a dishonest politician where readers know she’s part of some marginalized group and part of political group that slam everyone she can forcing politics. She should also point out that this includes name calling, removal of key employees/contributors whose coworkers/contribors are fine with, and blanket censorship on basis of one kind of politics. Reading that, many people who feel sympathy for her as a minority under assault would have a light bulb go off saying “Oh. No wonder people have a problem with her.” (Might be supporters or detractors as that realization goes two ways.) Since she’s a dishonest politican, she won’t change her writing and will continue acting like she’s a hapless victim getting hit with the same hate everyone gets if they’re a minority trying to do “good things.” Don’t fall for it.

                                                          Note: That said, she pushed some good analyses and features. As a truly-tolerant person, I know the world isn’t binary: even misguided activists or scheming people can do some good. I’m glad she did. I’m still for blocking her and her projects entirely in favor of non-extremist activists with similar skill who might also have made positive contributions without all the other crap.

                                                          1. 25

                                                            Wasn’t she hired for the purpose of pushing politics into every space she can, though? After all, she was hired into

                                                            a team called Community & Safety, charged with making GitHub more safe for marginalized people and creating features for project owners to better manage their communities.

                                                            That, by definition, sounds very political to me. I can sympathize (although not necessarily agree) with criticizing her approach, but criticizing her for arguing politics in a team called “Community & Safety” is a bit… odd.

                                                            EDIT: It’s hard to think that GitHub’s HR wasn’t aware of her past actions. It would be odd to expect an outspoken and opinionated person to simply stop being outspoken and opinionated at a new job, especially in a role like this. To me, this fact combined with the way she was treated and fired in the epilogue, points to some very pathological behavior by GitHub’s management.

                                                            1. 2

                                                              “Wasn’t she hired for the purpose of pushing politics into every space she can, though? After all, she was hired into”

                                                              Now, this is a better argument for at least what she did at GitHub. She was hired to do something inherently political. The main team she worked with seemed on her side of the politics. They probably weren’t representative of the rest of Github nor their actions wanted by the rest of Github. So, that dynamic has to be considered. HR department is an unknown since whoever told them about Coraline probably didn’t say she led mobs of people to attack open-source projects smearing them until they complied with her beliefs. These people usually present themselves as folks just trying to help companies understand social or diversity issues plus make things nicer on the Internet. I’d guess that’s what her team told HR along with recommendation that she was good at it. She specifically always mentions how she’s lived the harrassment and discrimination so she understands what she’s fighting [without mentioning her mob attacks].

                                                            2. 28

                                                              I read the opal thread and you are wrong. The first shot fired in incivility was from “meh” who wrote about what he did here. He explicitly set out to cause a shitstorm and he admits it as a way to get some publicity for Opal.

                                                              I don’t know about you but when I hear a developer like “meh” use the word “cuck”, I know which community he is part of and his agenda. His coding skills are weak too so he doesn’t exactly come from a place of strength.

                                                              1. 11

                                                                His coding skills are weak too so he doesn’t exactly come from a place of strength.

                                                                This is not a nice thing to say, especially since he is the maintainer for Opal and for elixir-socket and a bunch of Rust libraries–as is plainly visible here.

                                                                Please don’t say mean things about other people if you can’t back them up with facts.

                                                                1. 1

                                                                  Productivity is the greatest source of waste. I liken his work to that of a romance novel writer. But you know, that’s just an opinion of taste.

                                                                  1. 9

                                                                    One of the points he made is his critics will talk all kinds of trash about him or how the project should work. Yet, they aren’t going to contribute code to it to replace him or anyone else. They’re in effect lying about their intent to help to play politics and power games instead. To test that, are you planning on taking over maintenance and development for Opal? Or just going to give reasons from a distance why he and the other major contributors should effectively terminate the project by resigning over their code quality or politics? And with what benefit to the users of the 3.5k star project?

                                                                    I’d say none. It would be a net loss for lots of people. It’s better if they continue doing whatever they’re doing that’s benefiting people whether they’re nice folks on the inside or totally not nice.

                                                                2. 4

                                                                  “The first shot fired in incivility was from “meh” who wrote about what he did here. He explicitly set out to cause a shitstorm and he admits it as a way to get some publicity for Opal.”

                                                                  You clearly misread his post. You might not be aware of the SJW effect I’m describing in my original post. The term is about people who represent a minority within a minority who dog pile on other groups to force their specific views asking any dissent is censored. They love personal attacks and smears, too. There’s really no reason even discussing stuff with them because they’re not there to learn. It’s a holy war to them. The proper response is to disagree with them or ban them to get things stable again. Another legit, but perhaps less wise or virtuous, response to these zealots is trolling them to piss them off and make them leave.

                                                                  The very beginning of meh’s blog indicates he knows this and wants to troll them. Although he could stoop to their level, he mostly does it by stating a rational position about censorship and repeating he’ll take action if something bad happens. Endlessly repeating the same thing (tiring to me even). Let’s look at his blog. Watch as he instantly recognizes the situation by seeing a SJW author open a post asking for ejection/censorship of an opponent on political grounds:

                                                                  “One catches my eye, [opal] Transpho…,”

                                                                  The well-known, SJW author comes in with a censorship request on political grounds. He instantly knows they are there to attack and enforce their doctrine with no discussion. Therefore, there’s no use to read anything they say further unless one is studying how they approach discussion or political attacks. I read it for that purpose. One unfamiliar with them might also read their arguments to think on. He’s already seen them probably since it’s always the same stuff. He doesn’t read them.

                                                                  “I don’t read any further because there’s no need to, I already know the content of the issue and the nature of the OP.”

                                                                  As they have no regard for other humans [that disagree], he takes the trolling route to delight in causing the attackers as much problems as possible. That’s how he plans to send a statement that they need to knock off their attacks. The other statement he sends in the comments consistently is he’s not censoring a contributor unless they do something bad in the project itself. Neither they nor he is judging what people do in their spare time.

                                                                  “As I read a huge smile slowly creeps on my face and I think “it finally happened, they hit one of my projects, now I can send a statement”.”

                                                                  “The bigger part of the SJW mob arrives, shit flinging ensues, logical fallacies left and right, lots of laughing at all the purplehairs and cucks being unable to see past their overlord agenda and thinking they’re on reddit and sending comments with just @T :+1:.”

                                                                  “Suddenly pedophiles are brought into the picture, THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN? Having stated earlier in the issue that everyone was welcome, of course, I say even pedophiles would be welcome, everyone is if their contributions are worthwhile, why wouldn’t they.”

                                                                  “Then finally one of the cucks mentions Hitler, I start laughing heartily and by the rules of the Internet declare my victory in the argument, but of course it wasn’t over.”

                                                                  So, it plays out just as he expects. The attacks get dirtier and dirtier. They accept no reason or even the projects personal preference. They don’t care. So, he enjoys letting them show their ugly side as much as possible until someone reigns him in. In the process, the fools gave me one of the best examples of what SJW’s are and do. His use of word “cuck” might say something about him or just be an insult to attackers. I throw insults up to and including the N word at real-world attackers to make them too pissed off to fight me effectively. They’re attacking me to point that de-escalation didn’t work. So, I’m going to do the opposite of avoiding offending them. Personally, I think the names of his other repositories were more telling. ;)

                                                                  Conclusion: a political attacker/SJW, Coraline, launches opening strike on his project brining a hoard of attackers with her. He knows they won’t reason or care about his preferences. They will be vicious (see child molester sophistry). So, he says, “Fuck these people. I’m not going to back down and will just argue with them until they leave.” Even people on his side ask him to stop since the situation gets embarrassing. Eventually it ends.

                                                                  Btw, he’s not the only person that takes this approach. There are others that say it’s the only effective approach to deal with them outside banning them. They will twist logic and use rhetoric during their attacks. They have no morals in terms of tactics. So, just hit them hard with dismissals and rhetoric pissing them off until they leave. The reason is that mobs are vicious, unrelenting, and barely human. Described well here:

                                                                  http://thenewfem.com/how-to-defend-yourself-from-the-sjw-mob/

                                                                  http://www.voxday.net/mart/SJW_Attack_Survival_Guide.pdf

                                                                  Note: I’m not endorsing the character, background, or whatever of these sources. Just the information presented about mob’s actions and effects.

                                                                  1. 9

                                                                    I’m sorry, but the world needs social justice. the only mistake the SJWs, as you call them, make is not realize meh is a troll. meh lives in a fantasy land where strongmen are only legitimate voices. Those who use the word “cuck” fundamentally come from an anti-intellectual position. Oh wait, you seem to be fine with the use of the word “cuck”, would you agree?

                                                                    1. 8

                                                                      but the world needs social justice

                                                                      I agree. People fighting for actual social justice will try to increase tolerance, have discussion, build consensuses about what will/won’t be tolerated, and enforce that consistently. I do that on a regular basis at work and online. Then, there’s other people who represent a tiny slice of America, have specific views on what everyone should/shouldn’t do, and will use rhetoric/threats to force everyone in existence to comply with them or harm follows. They don’t even care if large numbers of those they claim to represent disagree with them or want something else. No discussion or deviation is allowed.

                                                                      That’s not social justice. It has more in common with religious mandates, fascist governments, and racist organizations than anything else. Small group decides the ideology, forces it on everyone, and anyone who disagrees is punished or disappears somehow. Dr Evil meme: “Justice for all.” Laughable if they didn’t do so much damage…

                                                                      “Oh wait, you seem to be fine with the use of the word “cuck”, would you agree?”

                                                                      Edit to add: No, most studies I’ve seen done on people who use profanity esp in colleges showed they were smarter than people assumed. Profanity was just another way they expressed themselves among many. Using an insult makes sense if it’s an attack intended to piss opponents off. You’ve latched onto it nicely to focus much of your energy on it to the exclusion of larger issues. “meh” is still winning against you in his goal of getting SJW’s or their supporters to waste energy on his words. Now, I’d probably agree with you if it’s how a person actually thought in a non-confrontational or casual situation. Or they explained (discriminatory views here) about (group here) where I can be sure they weren’t just trolling. If so, they’d be dumbasses at least on that subject. I’d roll my eyes and walk away. :)

                                                                      1. 4

                                                                        You might not be aware, but when you use the word cuck in a serious manner, other people are going to think you are 12 years old. Fair or unfair, that is the association it has.

                                                                        1. 3

                                                                          You’re not getting argument from me there. I just said words like that should only be used by idiots or as a tool to piss off a verbal attacker whose gone beyond reason or discussion. Maybe raunchy comedians too dropping it in occasionally about kne of their targets in mockery.

                                                                          Not rational or fair discourse, though.

                                                                    2. 3

                                                                      nickpsecurity

                                                                      You might not be aware of the SJW effect I’m describing in my original post. The term is about people who represent a minority within a minority who dog pile on other groups to force their specific views asking any dissent is censored.

                                                                      That isn’t what a SJW is though. You could literally call any alt-right person a SJW using that definition, every in-group online “dog piles”.

                                                                      A SJW in the pejorative sense means a person who engages in arguments on the internet about social justice for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. They use shallow or stupid arguments and social media as a means to increase their reputation and often don’t even care that much about the things they are arguing about as they are not personally affected. A similar thing happens when people do charity work simply to make themselves look better. It’s not about actually making the world a better place, its about personal reputation and internet fame. Trolls also make inflammatory comments online for the same reason, to have internet fame and cause drama for the lolz.

                                                                      a political attacker/SJW, Coraline, launches opening strike on his project brining a hoard of attackers with her.

                                                                      Reading the Opal thread, it seems one of the devs made a transphobic remark and attaches their online account to Opal, as in, they represent the project and it’s values/culture. They literally went out of their way to say shitty things about another group of people who probably have no affect on the guy’s day to day life. They could have chosen to not do that and just focus on tech, but they didn’t and there are consequences for being shitty to others, including having other people come out and say “hey, that’s really shitty” and having people refuse to work with said person who is being shitty to others.

                                                                      Coraline wasn’t the first person to “launch an opening strike”. Elia was the first person to go out of their way to attack another group of people who happen to deal with a lot of discrimination and totally unwarranted hate. If you really were against people attacking others online, you’d be against someone attacking trans people online. Obviously you are also just pushing your own political agenda.

                                                                      1. 4

                                                                        “That isn’t what a SJW is though. You could literally call any alt-right person a SJW using that definition, every in-group online “dog piles”.”

                                                                        You couldn’t because most of the right uses different tactics. Well, at least those I ran into. They were more direct. The SJW’s use a different strategy where them portraying themselves as a victim or fighting for victims is key. They try to not look like they’re the attackers. Alt-right using the same tactics would qualify them for the term if it was in name of social justice. I’d be cool with that.

                                                                        “A SJW in the pejorative sense means a person who engages in arguments on the internet about social justice for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. “

                                                                        That is not what they are. That’s a redefinition that was probably created by the same types of people. When I looked it up, the Wikipedia page was even rewriten to make it look like only racists and sexists of worst sort used the term to distract from the good efforts of the SJW’s. Who knows what it looks like by now. A key tactic of SJW’s is re-defining terms or building up strawmen. They use both to create distracting side arguments where people are arguing about the terms and so on instead of the actual thing they’re doing or demanding. They also like building up strawmen to do a bait and switch on the argument. Both techniques are described in a great write-up:

                                                                        http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/

                                                                        Note: The scrollbar gives impression that the article goes on forever. That’s the huge number of comments in it. The article itself isn’t that long for anyone that reads at a decent pace.

                                                                        On top of this, the SJW’s like to use smears. Anyone might do smears. Again, their strategy is to make it look like they’re the victim or representing victims. The smears will fit that. That’s why they went for a child molester and Hitler comparison in the Opal thread to set the opponent up to look like a monster. It’s usually just different accusations of -ism’s, claims they are harrassed by such and such, selective evidence of something like that which actually came out of a fight they started doing the same stuff, and so on. I’ve seen a gamut of techniques used which are all straight out of propaganda or disinformation guides. Finally, their goal is to totally censor opponents based on anything they say, who they associate with, and so on. Any non-compliance with their philosophy in any forum is grounds for them to ban that person from every forum. That’s how Opal thread started.

                                                                        “it seems one of the devs made a transphobic remark and attaches their online account to Opal,”

                                                                        You mean one of the devs just had a Twitter feed. In the past, it might have been a homepage or contact form with email. The developer was keeping the personal stuff separate from project stuff with them claiming to take contributions from anyone. Under SJW doctrine, he did two things:

                                                                        1. He didn’t accept the gender claim of transgender people. A huge chunk of America along with all kinds of pioneers in (insert field here) or activists in (movement here) is the same. They aren’t allowed to have that belief because SJW’s don’t allow dissent from their beliefs. Strike One.

                                                                        2. He expressed it in negative way on a public forum that one of their supporters saw. Either satirical or anti-transgender for real. SJW doctrine says, as previously stated, that you can’t ever violate their Code of Conduct or value system on any forum no matter how you act within projects or professionally. Strike 2, 3, and Out! Then, Coraline launched the attack trying to eject the key contributor on grounds of her crew’s politics while also offering nothing good for project in return. Typical for SJW’s although I’m not going to say for her necessarily. She did some good stuff at Github, for instance.

                                                                        “Coraline wasn’t the first person to “launch an opening strike”. Elia was the first person to go out of their way to attack another group of people who happen to deal with a lot of discrimination and totally unwarranted hate.Coraline wasn’t the first person to “launch an opening strike”. Elia was the first person to go out of their way to attack another group of people who happen to deal with a lot of discrimination and totally unwarranted hate.”

                                                                        This actually lets me illustrate the the SJW tactic right there. One group’s political beliefs are to be accepted as 100% correct. That would be SJW’s or any of liberal subset that agrees with them. Based on those mandated-by-them beliefs, any disagreement with that is automatically hate speech by their definitions. Since it’s hate speech, people that would be attackers are suddenly “defenders” of whoever was being “attacked” by the “hate speech.” Then they begin doing what I described. In this case, they didn’t argue with him on Twitter where he did the offense: they filed an issue with his Github to destroy his involvement with an open-source project for which he had only done positive things. Destroying reputation and livelihood is one of their common patterns.

                                                                        I’m going straight to the general case here. What a decent amount of your set of people call discriminatory speech, racism, sexism, etc are just different beliefs. They are in many cases shared by a ton of people in minority classes, too. The actual route to social justice is to allow discourse of diverse parties. Then, a consensus is built on what will or will not be tolerated. It might even vary place by place with First Amendment protecting its ability to evolve over time. Most of the time, these SJW’s did not get a consensus on anything. A small group of people made a decision, they decided everyone will comply with it, and anyone who doesn’t is “offensive” in a way that must be converted or eliminated. They then act on that one target at a time as individuals and/or mobs. Just like in the Opal thread. Fortunately, the maintainer knew about and was ready for them to force them to show their true colors and block the attack. It was good he did since what I saw before that attack was more subtle or with fewer people. The new attack made for nice illustration of many of their sophist tactics and fact that they contribute nothing in exchange for the control they ask for.

                                                                        Note: I’m not making any apologies for whether guy doing the tweet or maintainer are assholes. Probably based on what I see. Opal is just one of the clearest examples of how SJW’s operate by mobbing on projects trying to get their members banned for anything they claim to be discriminating. Even disagreeing with a transgender person, black person, woman, etc on any issue SJW’s would consider hate speech will cause them to do the same thing. They want total compliance with their core beliefs or that person to disappear. That is what I’m illustrating with Opal and calling out Coraline for. That is what gets her so much negative feedback but she doesn’t mention it. It wouldn’t support the narrative of her being the victim hit by unjustified oppression at every turn. Selective reporting of actions and motivations to support victim narrative followed by gaining control to force politics with suppression of opponents = SJW Strategy 101.

                                                                        1. 3

                                                                          You couldn’t because most of the right uses different tactics. Well, at least those I ran into. They were more direct. The SJW’s use a different strategy where them portraying themselves as a victim or fighting for victims is key. They try to not look like they’re the attackers.

                                                                          Most of the Trumpists I run into are deep into wallowing in the self-pity of victimhood. The whole “make America great again” slogan encapsulates that pretty directly. They feel aggrieved, and they blame it on a Jewish-Black-Muslim-Mexican-Chinese conspiracy that has allegedly victimized white Americans and caused all their troubles. That’s why we need, according to them, “safe spaces” free from people speaking Spanish, burning the American flag, or doing other things that upset their delicate sensibilities.

                                                                          1. 1

                                                                            Excellent illustration of that group doing the very things it complains about with SJW’s. I’d call what you described a right-leaning version of SJW style. Definitely. You bet me being deep in Trump Country hasn’t been fun if I’m a moderate that will call that BS. I told them all the White, Black, and Latino Christian killers in prison had me worried little about the handful of Arab Muslims in the country that might one day try to kill someone somewhere. Are they interested in having TSA profile white Christians since some bad folks were among their group? I told them those Republican, mostly-white-male-run states that ran right into the ground might do better with some more Republican, white males. The ones that caused the problems to begin with. I told them I was confused by their idea that righteous, universally-beneficial businesses might come out of their Bible-bashing theory of capitalism where everyone is as selfish and scheming as possible to build up material wealth at exclusion of others’ well-being. I asked which part of the New Testament they were getting it from since my copy might be a few books short or distorted to favor selflessness.

                                                                            Yeah, the victim mindset combined with bullshitting runs strong in the Trump crowd. They stopped bringing up their politics around me since I was driving them crazy with counterpoints. They even had to half agree with me on this stuff but struggled visibly to find the thread that allowed them to continue bashing (targets here) more than themselves. It was sad to watch rather than fun. Especially since I knew he’d win the election. :(

                                                                          2. 2

                                                                            That is not what they are. That’s a redefinition that was probably created by the same types of people.

                                                                            It’s the definition used by basically everyone:

                                                                            http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SJW

                                                                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

                                                                            http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/social-justice-warrior

                                                                            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

                                                                            SJWs and anti-SJWs all use the same exact tactics, fake news, misplaced moral outrage, dog piling, slacktivism, etc. I wasn’t the person who was redefining a term, you are using the term SJW with your own definition of what it is, and that definition could literally apply to anyone.

                                                                            But in any case, I am just pointing out that you are being hypocritical. You are complaining about something (dog piling and attacking a person) when that person literally is dog piling and attacking trans people.

                                                                            If I said “Christians aren’t accepting reality” would you not say that is a disparaging remark against a group of people? What is the point of even saying such things on a social media account with links back to my projects?

                                                                            When other people read it, they are going to think 2 things. One, that I have something against Christians, and two, the projects I am a part of are not friendly to Christians.

                                                                            If people then contact the project I am in (one I link to in my social media profiles) and say “hey, this person is being rather hateful against Christians and this makes people not want to contribute, maybe consider not having them in your community”. Would you say this is unreasonable? Maybe we can even change this to white men. Maybe I think all white men aren’t accepting of reality. Suddenly I am making my projects unfriendly to white men because…why…? The only reason I can think that a person would choose to do this is for attention and to intentionally cause drama and disparage others.

                                                                            They could have easily choose to keep their remarks in a non-public context or posted anonymously and separately from their projects. They did not do that. Even if they do think this way about trans people, why are they going out of their way to publicly attack a group who hasn’t done anything to them or affected them in any way personally? Someone does this in a pubic venue with links to accomplishments to give their comments more weight, and bring attention to themselves.

                                                                            You are defending this person saying they were dog piled when they jumped on the anti-trans dog pile head first.

                                                                            I think it was reasonable to make a request. I don’t think its ok for people to make comparisons to hitler, or make death threats, or any other over the top comment, but it was also not ok for people to double down and keep up with the transphobia. If you expect the evil “SJWs” to be rational and respectful, then why do you not hold the other side to this same standard?

                                                                            1. 1

                                                                              “It’s the definition used by basically everyone:”

                                                                              It’s possible that the sources I got my definition from were biased or redefining it. I’ll look into it further in case I’m making a mistake on it. I’m primarily focused on the tactics used on a specific kind of politics.

                                                                              “You are complaining about something (dog piling and attacking a person) when that person literally is dog piling and attacking trans people.”

                                                                              You’re redefining dogpiling now and attacking now. Dogpiling is a large number of people hitting someone at once. A person on their own Twitter account or space expressing an opposite position from trans people isn’t a dogpile. I don’t see them as attacking as I have to draw a line somewhere on personal expression. A person mocking something is a person mocking something. I follow numerous trans people on social media seeing them express the same damned things about those that disagree with their claimed identity. There’s no rush of liberals to hit their homepages, Githubs, employer’s emails, and so on asking they be removed from everything. Any comments that disagree with a trans identity or what’s considered discrimination… based solely on the beliefs of one set of people in the U.S…. is considered hate speech by these people and grounds for attacking a project asking for censorship. Doing actual damage that nobody would dispute. Any violation of their group’s claims can be called an “attack” since they’re unquestionable truths like Moses said he got from God or something. A religion. Anything truly negative on a public forum gets more action whereas they wouldn’t defend people in their outgroup from their ingroup doing the same stuff. I watch it all the time. Note that all sides have that bias but most don’t go for ejection from projects or destroying careers. They’re less common to rare but highly active.

                                                                              They’re usually more sublte or passive-aggressive in these attacks. Many happen in private with emails to people. So, as stated before, I used the Opal thread since they were more obvious about it. I’m not endorsing the character of anyone there although the contrast between meh and the attackers is pretty telling. The attackers style of “discussion” is unrelenting, viscious, full of rhetoric, and have no intention of doing the project contributions they hint at. I loved the last one about “burning bridges” as if these people or their political style represent hiring or promotions at any major firm in tech. It was just another lie to push their agenda.

                                                                              “If people then contact the project I am in (one I link to in my social media profiles) and say “hey, this person is being rather hateful against Christians and this makes people not want to contribute, maybe consider not having them in your community”. Would you say this is unreasonable?”

                                                                              I’d do two things. First, I’d ask if they were treating any Christians poorly in the project/community itself or just indifferently versus the others. Remember we’re usually talking about FOSS projects in these discussions. So, are they rejecting Christian’s code, opening up unnecessary issues, or making negative remarks aimed at them? Or is all this talk outside the project/community in their own personal space? If in the project, then they get a warning and/or a ban because they’re causing actual harm by being unfair or negative for personal reasons. They’re not being responsible in terms of what the shared space or work is trying to achieve.

                                                                              Second, if it was outside the project, I’d ask the people complaining if they’ve ever mocked another person’s beliefs or actions. Have they ever cut any jokes about other human beings? And did they do that recently in past week or month? Do they do it regularly? If so, then they’re being hypocritical mocking folks they disagree with then telling me someone else should be banned for doing the same thing. I’ll also note that some disagreements push emotional buttons. They should just probably avoid reading or listening to anything that really bothers them. My parents taught me that trick in elementary school maybe. Then, I’d remind them that First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech. Things people have a problem with and want censored. That varies over time a lot where stuff you’re complaining about might have been socially acceptable to people like you a few decades ago. It took people saying or doing things that others found offensive for some time before change happened. So, I’d say I’m not eliminating a person for unpopular speech so long as they aren’t doing it here directed at people it might piss off. That’s disallowed in shared space on principles of being courteous and respectful of others’ preferences while working together.

                                                                              So, there you go. That’s the “Be a grown adult, accept people say things you don’t like in their spare time, and defend yourself only when they’re starting something with you” take on the situation modified with the First Amendment. However, I could’ve readily dismissed it since your example, although it happens, makes no sense to me as a former, devout Christian. We’re taught to strive for fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). We attempt to love, forgive, and pray for our enemies instead of ban or destroy them. If they did the opposite, I’d remind them of that gently at first escalating if they do to calling out their sin or Graham talking about how 90% of Christians actions don’t match their claim of faith. Hypocrisy always infuriated me more than anything. I’d tell them to be patient and not take it personally unless verbal or physical attacks within the project/community where I’d step in myself.

                                                                              “Maybe I think all white men aren’t accepting of reality. Suddenly I am making my projects unfriendly to white men because…why…?”

                                                                              Change all to most and you have the actual belief of most people that would join Coraline on an attack. They know some acknowledge their magic privilege and support the cause. The rest aren’t accepting reality by implication since such people say our view of it is incorrect. Yet, we’re still on Lobsters, Hacker News, sub-Reddit’s with different types of people, some still contribute to places with CoC’s just watching what they say, going to liberal Universities even if they weren’t as liberal, having friends in BLM, and so on. Without ever asking that those that disagree with or annoy them be removed from those places. I’m guessing we were all collectively taught to have thick skin not caring what others say, let them be them while we be us, keep stuff civil as possible, or standing our ground on our beliefs. It’s work but it makes us collectively stronger. Your side acts like it’s impossible or entirely too hard for such a thing to have happened whereas mine just thinks it’s a difference in upbringing and what the social circle reinforces. Your side reinforces victim mindset, shaming, and ostracism. Mine reinforces what I just described, acceptance of differences, helping everyone I can, and fighting all structural oppression with fair methods whether it’s minority or otherwise.

                                                                              “I think it was reasonable to make a request. I don’t think its ok for people to make comparisons to hitler, or make death threats, or any other over the top comment, but it was also not ok for people to double down and keep up with the transphobia. “

                                                                              I appreciate that you personally won’t go for personal attacks or ridiculous comparisons. Although you share beliefs with them, you’ve been much more civil than the people I was refering to. Your Christian and white comparisons were much more fair. I’ve already said I’ll let people believe whatever they want in their personal time but stop any attacks in shared space or directed at a person. That this can work out isn’t hypothetical: it’s how most businesses run down here with different people mostly getting along. Some times there’s moments of racism or sexism where people say what they have to say. A bit of bickering that stresses us out. Next day, they usually apologize to each other and we get along fine. That’s in and around a murder captial with high, racial tensions. BLM seizing the bridge/airport and the KKK marches are basically the worst things I’ve seen with overt, racial targeting at a large scale. It’s usually just verbal disputes people get past or learn to avoid such people where possible. We get along pretty well without a liberal Code of Conduct plus censorship and ejection.

                                                                              That’s people just arguing with politics based on their biases. Attacks aren’t tolerated by decent folks. In my business especially, we’ll fire someone for verbal harassment, sexual harassment, or physically attacking someone. That’s because there’s a consensus across groups that these are evil and won’t be tolerated. If no consensus, we go back to being patient or making spot decisions saying “That’s not cool. Seriously don’t do that because I’m not comfortable with it.” Respecting boundaries leans more like a CoC but we’re free by default with each individual deciding for themselves what they will or won’t tolerate. Nothing forced on people by external parties.

                                                                    3. 7

                                                                      These people are terrifying and I’m not surprised they were pushed out over “communication” and that people rushed to look for poor coding. I suspect you can’t open internal issues at github asking people to be removed for being aggressively illiberal identity politicians who might try to get you fired if you’ve got opinions they don’t like.

                                                                      1. 4

                                                                        Also, a huge number of people in groups they claim to benefit disagree with them, have no say in the matter, and will be censored too.

                                                                        I believe they dismiss that class of people with a term of their own invention.

                                                                      1. 5

                                                                        I really like that they break down some of the reasons why someone would want to use containers rather than virtual machines. Namely that virtual machines require a minimum amount of resources to run simply because you have an entire OS to run along with an application, vs a container that requires far less resources on the same hardware. When you are able to run the same services with less system resources you also use less electricity, save money for your company and ultimately help slow down climate change. Its an interesting point that I hadn’t considered before.

                                                                        1. 2

                                                                          Which vulnerabilities would this have thwarted/made more difficult?

                                                                          1. 1

                                                                            Someone could compile their own kernel to turn off security features and allow exploits. Then it’s just a matter of copying the kernel over when you are able and SSHing in later. It’s even possible to package this kernel and market it so other people are encouraged to install it. Then you can just keep track of the IPs that download it and try your exploit to see if you get access.

                                                                            https://github.com/lucyoa/kernel-exploits

                                                                            http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Security-HOWTO/kernel-security.html

                                                                            This is obviously not something that would be that easy, but if you could get a copy of your kernel onto a VPS host which is used in server creation, you could very quickly gain access to lots and lots of servers.

                                                                            tldr: join the tin hat society because everyone is out to get you :P

                                                                          1. 8

                                                                            TLDR for posterity: type esc like 4 times just to be sure, then colon then letter q (to quit without saving) or the letters qw (to quit and write/save the data) and then hit enter.

                                                                            1. 6

                                                                              if you’re in crazy mode you might need a double :q (or :q followed by :q!)

                                                                              1. 8

                                                                                Vim mode (anti-)golf!

                                                                                How about something Deep Vim like: digraph inside the expression register inside Ex inside Insert (to get here: i<Ctrl-O>gQ<Ctrl-R>=<Ctrl-K>)? From here hitting escape n times doesn’t work.

                                                                                A sequence of commands that works no matter where you are in that stack of modes is something like:

                                                                                1. <Esc> exit digraph mode (or do nothing in Ex-Mode or expression-register)
                                                                                2. <Ctrl-U><Enter> exit expression register (or execute empty command in Ex-Mode)
                                                                                3. <Ctrl-U>vi<Enter> exit Ex-Mode
                                                                                4. <Esc>:qa! exit Insert mode and quit

                                                                                This sequence also works for other modes I tried, like a half-entered command inside Insert-Visual (i<Ctrl-O>vg) – here, pushing v in step 3 gets you back into Insert and then the rest will exit.

                                                                              2. 3

                                                                                for posterity: it’s actually :q! if you made changes and you want to exit without saving.

                                                                                1. 4

                                                                                  Nope. If you already in insert mode you can :q! until you blue in the face.

                                                                                  esc :q!

                                                                                  usually saves the day.

                                                                                2. 3

                                                                                  the letters qw (to quit and write/save the data)

                                                                                  I recently discovered that x does the same job as qw. Now I remember q for exit with no changes (or q! as @weaksauce points out), and x for exit-and-save

                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                    I use that too, but I think for new people its better for them to learn qw first so they know w is write and q is quit. Like building a vocabulary for vim commands.

                                                                                1. 8

                                                                                  This was going to be a reply to a comment but Im making it to OP. The labels at the top of the papers, on the files, on the packets, and so on are required by DOD policy to make classified info identifiable. That was mandated under TCSEC B1 class and above as a requirement of operating systems. Compartmented Mode Workstations (CMW’s) like Trusted Solaris or Argus Pitbull are examples from industry.

                                                                                  Now, the overall industry and web don’t comply with that obviously. However, the leaked documents themselves are usually marked properly and clickbait titles almost always indicate it’s a leak or classified. Still easy to avoid without an OS supporting labelling or Lobsters tag. I almost always know when Im going to see classified info.

                                                                                  Matter of fact, why the hell aren’t people that worried about it using disposable machines or DOD-certified virtualization (eg GD’s HAP or Dell SCS w/ INTEGRITY-178B) to access unknown content so they can easily remove accidental downloads within policy? Shouldn’t be our burden if solutions exist. Those clearances usually come with extra cash. Buy a laptop or desktop like I just mentioned. Surf untrusted sources in an Internet VM with only vetted stuff going to desktop VM. Don’t put anything illegal in it. Best case you just delete and/or restore the Internet VM. Worst being you tell those that show up it was an accident, you deleted it the moment you saw the labels, let them search both VM’s (net one is clean from backup), and they don’t prosecute… probably. That’s how I’d do it.

                                                                                  http://www.integrityglobalsecurity.com/pages/solutions.html

                                                                                  https://gdmissionsystems.com/cyber/products/trusted-computing-cross-domain/trusted-multilevel-computing-solution/

                                                                                  Note: Not endorsing their security. Just saying the government has certified them for multi-level operations with these specific products allowing cleanest solution (VM’s). Trusted OS’s with file-based MAC might leave stuff lying around or be less believable.

                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                    I am quite familiar with all of those things (minus the DOD-certified virtualization, that will make for some good reading, thanks!), but this tag suggestion wasn’t about HA and labels, it’s more for the readers who might stumble into links without realizing it contained classified data that was leaked. Nothing protects against that for them, other than just being polite.

                                                                                    1. 4

                                                                                      I see where you’re coming from. Thing is, almost no site does that. Plus, even on a site like that, someone might post something without the tag. So, they can’t operate with the expectation that the site will. We’re right back to them using due diligence plus ensuring separation and quick deletion of classified material. I mean, it won’t bother me if Lobsters adds the tag. I’m just saying the impact is incredibly tiny cuz Lobsters is tiny and likely without many doing classified work. Plus they need their own solution anyway so why not rely on it.

                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                        I mean, would you also argue that putting “nsfw” next to links is useless because “some people might not use it” ? That seems ridiculous. As more people use the classified tag, more people see it exists and learn to use it, it self propagates, becomes a part of how you mark links and a part of online culture. You guys are all acting like a simple tag is the end of damn world. Its a courtesy and I don’t see how having it could possibly cause harm, vs not having it which obviously can cause harm.

                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                          “That seems ridiculous”

                                                                                          Your example is a corporate policy. Mine is DOD policy, federal law, and possible prosecution under Espionage Act. There’s a world of difference. The consequences are so severe and witch hunts increasingly common that a rational person with a clearance would address the risk themselves as I described. People can help them but that’s a supplement that’s not even necessary with my solution.

                                                                                          Re propagation

                                                                                          You’re saying that on a forum with tiny number of users, even less comments, and many comments getting no vote or reply (low active participation). This isn’t the place to “propagate” anything into mass adoption outside maybe the forum software itself. Even it is wisely on GitHub which is normally necessary these days for getting source remixed. Your point would make good sense if it was about “classified” warning on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, or some other massively-popular, trend-setting service.

                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                            As more people use the classified tag, more people see it exists and learn to use it, it self propagates, becomes a part of how you mark links and a part of online culture.

                                                                                            This is a worst-case scenario IMO, as it would reduce plausible deniability for government employees who wish to be informed citizens despite their employers’ forbiddance.

                                                                                    1. 17

                                                                                      I’m not comfortable adding tags to accommodate unjust policies. Should we add an “anti-Kim Jong-un” tag to accommodate North Koreans who don’t want to be prosecuted for viewing articles that speak against the supreme leader?

                                                                                      The fact that this is only relevant to people with security clearance also puts severe limits on its usefulness. If you have some level of clearance, you would be more inclined to read articles about documents that you are cleared for. So “classified” wouldn’t be enough for people with security clearance to decide whether they’re allowed to read an article. You’d really need a tag for each classification level and handling caveat (SECRET, NOFORN, etc.), which is already taken care of upstream in the headers that agencies put on classified documents.

                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                        Just because you’re cleared to handle SECRET information doesn’t mean you have the need to know any particular datum and, anyway, downloading or viewing any level of classified information on unclassified machines is not kosher for anyone– individual classification tags are probably not necessary.

                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                          But shouldn’t you be more interested in such an article, as you have potentially more context than the general public, and it’s potentially more relevant to your life?

                                                                                          1. 3

                                                                                            Interest isn’t the issue. If you have a clearance and don’t have need to know, even if the information is within your level of access to classified material, you cannot legally access the material.

                                                                                            1. 2

                                                                                              Ah I see. So is it illegal for journalists to look at documents they receive from leakers? Or does this somehow only apply to people with some level of clearance?

                                                                                              1. 3

                                                                                                It’s not that it “somehow” only applies to people with clearances. People with clearances agree, as part of getting a clearance, to only access classified information within their clearance level and for which they have need to know. This agreement is binding, and violation of it is potentially a crime. The average person has not entered into such an agreement, and more broadly it would be unreasonable and impractical for the government to try and punish all people who become privy to the contents of publicly disclosed but still classified materials.

                                                                                                1. 13

                                                                                                  To be quite blunt: it’s their job to ensure this. Independent of whether we should add a tag or not, making it easier for people entering certain agreements to uphold this agreement is not the job of this website. Browse at your own risk.

                                                                                                  We navigate an unlabeled world all the time, and while I’d prefer everything to have a clear label (for other reasons), suddenly making these people the special case where it’s absolutely necessary is odd to me.

                                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                                    making it easier for people entering certain agreements to uphold this agreement is not the job of this website. Browse at your own risk.

                                                                                                    Its just a tag. You are making it out to be something that is lots of work for little reward, but it is exactly the opposite, it wouldn’t take much work to add a tag and it helps lots of people to protect their jobs and prevent accidentally becoming a criminal.

                                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                                      “helps lots of people to protect their jobs and prevent accidentally becoming a criminal.”

                                                                                                      To help lots of people with clearances clicking links on an obscure forum known to contain illegal releases of classified information and frequented by self-reported hackers. That sounds bad enough for a warrant already. Then, they are possibly in the NSA collection system the moment they open the front page in a scenario like that due to 3 degrees policy depending on if a monitored person replies to thread. With that backdrop, I’m surprised they’d even connect to the site at all without anonymity tools or using a shared access point (library or wifi) for deniability.

                                                                                                    2. 3

                                                                                                      I can appreciate the point you’re making here. The number of Lobste.rs readers who would care about such a tag as a means of protecting their jobs is likely small. OTOH, it would serve as an interesting data point for those of us who DO NOT have such jobs and might want to read such articles, and I suspect that audience might be larger.

                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                        I’m not saying otherwise. I was simply explaining the legal issues underpinning the ability of people with clearances to read publicly available but still classified material.

                                                                                                      2. 1

                                                                                                        I don’t understand your first sentence, which seems to contradict the rest of your comment, but thanks for the info.

                                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                                          I meant that saying “somehow” makes it sound strange and nefarious, and I wanted to disagree with that connotation.

                                                                                                    3. 1

                                                                                                      This is correct. It was explained to me that the clearance is a vetting process saying you potentially could access something at that level. The specific things that you can access are what you need access to.

                                                                                                      Then there’s extra complexity once we go into ownership (did they authorize officially?), SCI, and SAP’s. Basic concepts of clearance, compartments, and need to know cover vast majority of situations, though.

                                                                                                2. 2

                                                                                                  With respect, are you qualified to judge what is just and what is not in absolute terms? What if the people who work in such jobs consider themselves to in fact be just in their actions?

                                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                                    Nobody is qualified to judge what is just in absolute terms, but that’s no reason to give up all conception of justice. And to be clear I am saying the policies are unjust, not actions of the individuals who work under those policies.

                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                      Are they? You’re a government. Your goal is to protect your people and further your goals, economic and social.

                                                                                                      You come to realize that there are certain pieces of information which, if they got into the wrong hands, could hurt you (again ‘you’ here being the nation in questioon).

                                                                                                      So, you define certain sets of people who can see certain things. Now, I realize, for hard core “all information wants to be free” types, this is a ring zero violation right here. However, for the purpose of this discussion let’s say that not everyone agrees with this as an absolute.

                                                                                                      You need to define rules to keep the wrong people from seeing critical information, including penalties to keep these rules from being patently ignored.

                                                                                                      What is inherently unjust about the above scenario? The right of a nation to protect its secrets? Or the idea that said nation can legislate what information its employees can or can’t consume? Note that getting a job with clearance is a choice. It’s a voluntary obligation people are putting themselves under.

                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                        Or the idea that said nation can legislate what information its employees can or can’t consume?

                                                                                                        This would be what I feel is unjust. In particular, when this information is public, it prevents said employees from being informed and engaged citizens. The fact that their employment is voluntary doesn’t make a difference to me - indentured servitude is unjust even if it’s the result of a voluntary agreement.

                                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                                          That is an interesting conundrum, and maybe there’s some room there for reform in the intelligence community.

                                                                                                        2. 2

                                                                                                          That scenario you gave is not how the classification systems actually work. They’re a combo of that with political moves and crimes covered up by the classification. In the US, classification of criminal acts isn’t even legal but they do it & punish leakers anyway. Much of defense activity is also driven by corruption where military and politicians get money from contractors plus politicians get votes or jobs in their districts. The possibly-classified justification for or performance of those programs would be lies to justify profiteering on wasted tax dollars. Trailblazer was a recent example.

                                                                                                          So, these things are what we need to consider if assessing how just or unjust a classification system is. The U.S.’s is a mixed bag of just classifications, unnecessary classifications (“overclassification”), underperforming in declassification (FOIA), and hiding criminal activity. Definitely needs a ton of reform.

                                                                                                          Although, the Jason Society did a proposal for a replacement system that sounded good, too. So, reform or replace.