It would be funny if you just lectured all of us about what you think the woman was saying in an article that mentions men interpreting women stories.
> My point of contention is whether or not it is okay to shush a person talking about a collective simply because they aren't members of it. Or more broadly, whether it is okay to dismiss, silence and minimize the struggles of a collective because of some twisted notion that they deserve it.
That's a YOU problem, what you are saying in the quote is a complete parody of what people are saying when they talk about representation, identification, and lived experiences.
You extrapolate a lot.
> Thus, she is plainly saying that she hates hearing opinions about European myth and folklore stories... when the speakers are men.
I don't think this applies only to European myth and folklore stories. The joke quote "She breasted boobily to the stairs and titted downward" didn't appear out of nowhere. Only 19% readers of female writers are male (but 45% women readers for male writers) (Nielsen Book Research). If someone doesn't want to read stories from other gender groups, its statistically men.
> She could have said "I hate hearing poor interpretations of women's stories", or "I hate the interpretations provided by Person XYZ", but she didn't, and the context paints a clear picture that it wasn't an accident. She is perfectly content blaming the group for the errors of the individuals, a hallmark of prejudice.
prejudice (countable and uncountable, plural prejudices): (countable) An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts. (countable) A preconception, any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative. (countable) An irrational hostile attitude, fear or hatred towards a particular group, race or religion. (obsolete) Knowledge formed in advance; foresight, presaging.
I don't think there is anything irrational in the article I'm reading. The whole thing is nuanced, comes from experience in the writing business and is absolutely not attacking men in the way you describe her (misandrist, etc.).
> I find it particularly funny that she doesn't seem to even contemplate the possibility that some the stories she loves so much may have been written by men. [...]
And here we are, the little patronizing tone coming from the guy who is keen on attacking people on what they didn't say. You just go around insulting people?
> Why would it be such a terrible thing for men to discuss women's stories, or vice versa? I can only see good things coming out of more people sharing their viewpoint on a subject and I'm glad that she shared her expertise.
You are the only one here who thinks people are somehow trying to ban men from doing that, and vice versa.
I can't imagine hearing someone say "I hate when men do this [badly]" and interpret it as "I hate men and they should be banned from doing this".
> So when men give their opinion about women's stories, they are 'interpreting' them (scare quotes in the original). But when she does, she is merely "encouraging conversation" (verbatim). What, exactly, is the difference?
The difference is in the text you don't quote: and who are kind enough then to suggest to us ways in which our lives as women might be improved. The difference is the that you have a lot of know-it-all male writers or commenters that explain how women should behave (e.g. how to write an article). This is different than coming from the perspective of learning. Maybe you didn't catch that because that's implied in the text, but this is not about all men or all male writers in general.
> The simplest explanation for all the above is that the author is openly and proudly misandrist. That is my interpretation.
Of course that's your interpretation. Your brought extra material to the article using the power of prejudice.
I get it, but the syntax is surprising. This is more like += etc. so I would expect a notation like ()= (ie. apply-equal) in a way that is not related to piping I guess.
smerge-refine is one keybinding I always use to highlight changes in 3-way diffs between base/mine, base/theirs, mine/theirs. The only problem is knowing what mine and theirs mean sometimes.
> In order to handle assignments, Picat creates new variables at compile time. In the above example, at compile time, Picat creates a new variable, say X1, to hold the value of X after the assignment X:=X+1.
In the standard it is not specified if such loops mutate or rebind, and you have to assume it doesn't rebind if you capture variables. I do think however that once you learn how it works it stops being a problem (in any case I can select the form, macroexpand it and it shows how it's implemented)
Your boss or project maintainer in an open source project starts spreading conspiracy theories on the internet (Q, Flat Earth, whatever), to the point he becomes a public embarassment. Do you want to continue working with him?
I’ll leave you with three more bits of evidence that things are more complex than the open letter would have you believe:
1. A competing letter in support of RMS exists and has accumulated considerably more signatures than the letter condemning RMS.
2. In response someone created a Chrome extension that marks repositories owned by a signatory of this support letter with red text on GitHub.
3. The announcement of this extension was welcomed with 394 likes on Twitter.
Just tell us why is it bad again?
There is a public repository, with people signing publicly. The plugin does not reveal any hidden information, the only thing it does is make it easier to find out if someone publicly supports RMS. If you look at outliers you may find individuals who equate signing the letter with being a pedo, but I have yet to see a major Twitter account implying so. For me it just means I might not get along with the person since they do not think RMS being in the board is an issue for FSF.
Also, "the mob this", "the mob that", you can't just label people "mob" when you disagree with them.
> That's exactly what these totalitarian wokists aim for: to make people afraid to oppose them.
Look who is insulting people here and making assumptions.
If git plan helps get the work done, that's great for you. I don't really understand the need to dunk on git in passing (a lot of people do this). I mean, there is no demonstration that git, by itself, encourages bad habits.
For example:
> Neither of those choices are good, but git doesn't give us much choice.
and
> Git forces you to write your commit message at the end of your coding session - after you've already turned your thoughts into code anyway.
No, git tends to not force anything, it gives you tools to stash, commit, rebase, push, etc. you are free to use them at any point of your coding session.
There is little to none workflow made mandatory by git, which is how various workflows can be supported by it (github, patches over emails, git-flow, etc.)
> If you context-switch during your coding session, git is not aware of it. In-fact, git isn't even a part of the picture until after you've finished writing code.
maybe that's a problem of your workflow, not the tool, and again if git plan helps you with part, that's cool. This is however does not look like a typical git situation to me.
> The "right" thing to do is to spend time un-tangling your changes, staging them in groups and committing with well thought-out commit messages.
> So commit early and commit often: you can tidy up later with rebase.
In your examples, my workflow would be to use git between each context switch.
> Picture the scene, you're in the zone working on a new feature in your codebase when you spot a typo and fix it.
magit-status, mark the line, commit it with a quick message "fix typo".
If you find that magit is cheating, then (1) it feels like cheating, in a good way, and (2) git add -p file is still quite easy to do?
> Then, to facilitate the feature you're working on you decide to make a small architectural change elsewhere in the codebase.
oh, let's git stash first
> Finally, before finishing your session you decide to refactor some code in one of the files you were working on.
Ok but first, let's do a quick git commit, then work on that.
Eventually I rebase interactively to write better messages, clean things up, then push.
People part of the GNU movement say "we owe a debt of gratitude to Richard Stallman for his decades of important work in the free software movement". Andy Wingo said "he created GNU, speaking it into existence via prophetic narrative and via code; yes, he inspired many people, myself included, to make the vision of a GNU system into a reality; and yes, he should be recognized for these things."
They also say: "Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users."
Andy also wrote: "I can hear you saying it. RMS started GNU so RMS decides what it is and what it can be. GNU has long outgrown any individual contributor. I don't think RMS has the legitimacy to tell this group of largely volunteers what we should build or how we should organize ourselves. Or rather, he can say what he thinks, but he has no dominion over GNU; he does not have majority sweat equity in the project. But I don't accept that. GNU is about practical software freedom, not about RMS. [...] I simply state that I, personally, do not serve RMS."
Your comment is the one attributing to others malicious intent:
"Unfortunately, there are activists within the GNU movement, like Andy Wingo, that have done everything they can to have RMS removed from everything he has built."
I don't know why, maybe when you get older (as I do), you start being afraid of being put out of work by younger people (I don't), or maybe you are yourself neurodivergent and weird with people (I do). It is logical, then, to feel empathy for rms. But, factually, rms is not being confronted for his "quircks" or his age.
The way public figures behave, publicly and in their relationship with others as part of their work, has an impact on the culture it encourages. The fact that people express discomfort, fear, etc. when they want to contribute to free software is worrying. I feel bad for them. I see nothing unfortunate here in having people confront someone in power for his behaviour.
I mean, it is 2021, do I need to quote the Peter Parker principle?
> My point of contention is whether or not it is okay to shush a person talking about a collective simply because they aren't members of it. Or more broadly, whether it is okay to dismiss, silence and minimize the struggles of a collective because of some twisted notion that they deserve it.
That's a YOU problem, what you are saying in the quote is a complete parody of what people are saying when they talk about representation, identification, and lived experiences.
You extrapolate a lot.
> Thus, she is plainly saying that she hates hearing opinions about European myth and folklore stories... when the speakers are men.
I don't think this applies only to European myth and folklore stories. The joke quote "She breasted boobily to the stairs and titted downward" didn't appear out of nowhere. Only 19% readers of female writers are male (but 45% women readers for male writers) (Nielsen Book Research). If someone doesn't want to read stories from other gender groups, its statistically men.
> She could have said "I hate hearing poor interpretations of women's stories", or "I hate the interpretations provided by Person XYZ", but she didn't, and the context paints a clear picture that it wasn't an accident. She is perfectly content blaming the group for the errors of the individuals, a hallmark of prejudice.
The "pre" in prejudice means something.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prejudice
prejudice (countable and uncountable, plural prejudices): (countable) An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts. (countable) A preconception, any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative. (countable) An irrational hostile attitude, fear or hatred towards a particular group, race or religion. (obsolete) Knowledge formed in advance; foresight, presaging.
I don't think there is anything irrational in the article I'm reading. The whole thing is nuanced, comes from experience in the writing business and is absolutely not attacking men in the way you describe her (misandrist, etc.).
> I find it particularly funny that she doesn't seem to even contemplate the possibility that some the stories she loves so much may have been written by men. [...]
And here we are, the little patronizing tone coming from the guy who is keen on attacking people on what they didn't say. You just go around insulting people?
> Why would it be such a terrible thing for men to discuss women's stories, or vice versa? I can only see good things coming out of more people sharing their viewpoint on a subject and I'm glad that she shared her expertise.
You are the only one here who thinks people are somehow trying to ban men from doing that, and vice versa. I can't imagine hearing someone say "I hate when men do this [badly]" and interpret it as "I hate men and they should be banned from doing this".
> So when men give their opinion about women's stories, they are 'interpreting' them (scare quotes in the original). But when she does, she is merely "encouraging conversation" (verbatim). What, exactly, is the difference?
The difference is in the text you don't quote: and who are kind enough then to suggest to us ways in which our lives as women might be improved. The difference is the that you have a lot of know-it-all male writers or commenters that explain how women should behave (e.g. how to write an article). This is different than coming from the perspective of learning. Maybe you didn't catch that because that's implied in the text, but this is not about all men or all male writers in general.
> The simplest explanation for all the above is that the author is openly and proudly misandrist. That is my interpretation.
Of course that's your interpretation. Your brought extra material to the article using the power of prejudice.