The inertia of large enterprises makes Oracle largely immune to perceived bullying or negative reputation. While the "boots on the ground" developers may be displeased with how Oracle increases friction, project managers and directors are happy to continue renewing their contracts in order to keep their systems "supported."
Oracle are shrugging their shoulders all the way to the bank.
It would be really cool if Github let users know when they are about to do something that is almost certainly a horrible mistake. However, is it their responsibility to stop them? I hope not. They provide a service that does exactly what it says on the box. Github shouldn't be obligated to prevent people from committing files that are otherwise valid and legal.
A better question would be: Could Github be successfully found liable for other users leaving their own keys in a public repository?
While I did not speak to censorship, nor did you in the comment I replied to, I do agree that blanket censorship is not good for anyone. That does not mean that casual discriminatory speech shouldn't be considered foul in general.
Insert bit here about it not being illegal or immoral to police discriminatory speech on a private service.
Would it be alright, then, if it said, "WebM for Black People?"
It isn't important to quibble over what words we consider offensive in the past, present, or future. The real problem is speaking about a classification of human being as being less than fully human or using those classifications as shortcuts for "inferior."
A person with darker skin is no less human than one with lighter skin. Similarly, two people with differing sets of abilities are both also fully human. Just because someone else is made of slightly different stuff doesn't make those differences fair game for ridicule.
I generally agree with you. My comment did not add to the discussion meaningfully, and I apologize for that.
I chose to comment because the author of the linked post and the HN submitter are the same person; my reaction came directly from this association. All the same, the remark doesn't belong on HN.
I always struggle with this. On the one hand, advertising used iPhones after searching for "used iPhone" is the most relevant of relevant advertising. It presents information that's actually interesting and useful. If we are sitting around acknowledging that we're hitching our wagons to ad revenue, this is what everybody wants.
On the other hand, those ads might be burying a search result that offers a better, cheaper, or more reputable place to buy that used iPhone. This is a win for the advertiser since the game is influencing behavior, but that consumer might kick themselves for missing a better alternative because the ads were in the way. This reality subverts the ideal mission of an Internet search engine: to return the most relevant and interesting result first. It's not as if Google hasn't been working hard since its inception to improve this, too.
Disclosure: I work for a company that makes (almost) all of its money from ad sales.
Exactly. If you want so badly to bring your services to those markets, why not just bring your services to those markets? Why not challenge the inherently monopolistic nature of cable franchise agreements in court? Why not prove to your market that you are a superior competitor?
This is a very interesting redesign, and it shocks me that they chose to do it. On the one hand, this update is beautiful with a tasteful front page and familiar-yet-fresh documentation pages. On the other hand, the old design was also fantastic.
Despite kicking around for just under 10 years, the old Django look never felt old, ugly, or clunky. It had a clean, thoughtful layout with good color contrast and an unmistakable Django identity. To me, it never gained the "cruft" that similarly-aged designs seem to take on. It always felt modern.
Loving the new design, but I would have never guessed that there were plans to ditch the old one.
Why do we need to give programmers such punchy titles? I haven't heard anyone doing this in any other craft. In my view, calling someone a good, great, excellent, skilled, or top programmer as appropriate is more than adequate.
Oracle are shrugging their shoulders all the way to the bank.