I agree that "if you have to explain a joke, it isn't funny", but not only was I on-topic for the story -- but also for the specific thread.
The implied point was that the good people at Western Union aren't as dumb as the previous commenter stated, and probably are excited about a (possible) reinvention and embracing of bitcoin.
Forgive me for injecting some levity into an otherwise boring story, but my point was clear and remains valid.
I suppose I should have just called the previous poster a troll and stated "they're probably excited". Oops. I'll be more confrontational next time.
(Also, not on reddit, just would rather attempt to use humor to get a point across. Maybe I watched too much Monty Python as a kid...)
Edit: Lol.. not sure why I was downvoted. It is obvious the previous poster meant that bitcoin is over-the-heads of employees of Western Union... this was a play on that.
The defense of honor was a kindof tongue-in-cheek response.
The reason I posted this here is that I think it speaks more to a systemic problem with open source.
The great thing about OSS is that it's always possible to fork, but then you're fragmenting communities and investments in time.
I really wish github (and OSS in general) was more democratized.
Every popular repo out there has half a dozen PRs sitting open -- some of them good, a lot of them bad -- but code rot is alive and well in the node.js community and there is no reason for it.
> It is not a reasonable to assume that others are
> obliged to work with a pull request submitter.
I do disagree with this. If you're going to release software publicly, then it's your responsibility to make it the best software it can be, and if you can't, you need to hand over the reins.
http://angularjs.org/ -- You'll see that the functionality is pretty similar, only if you start with angular, you'll be on your way to creating the fully functional site.
Plus angular is backed by google (hopefully not in a GWT way... ooooo java->js burn).
I agree that "if you have to explain a joke, it isn't funny", but not only was I on-topic for the story -- but also for the specific thread.
The implied point was that the good people at Western Union aren't as dumb as the previous commenter stated, and probably are excited about a (possible) reinvention and embracing of bitcoin.
Forgive me for injecting some levity into an otherwise boring story, but my point was clear and remains valid.
I suppose I should have just called the previous poster a troll and stated "they're probably excited". Oops. I'll be more confrontational next time.
(Also, not on reddit, just would rather attempt to use humor to get a point across. Maybe I watched too much Monty Python as a kid...)