> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation.
Think about why he compares gypsies to wolves, and talks about "self-preservation".
You might want to be pedantic and try to say he's not comparing them to wolves. He is the one who put those two sentences next to each other. You can choose to ignore the thing that feels obvious to others.
I know a lot of people are decently close to DHH in their feelings on this issue. I think that being publicly loud about these opinions that most people keep to themselves simply leads to wondering what his _actual_ deep opinions are. Think about what you say in private compared to what you say in public, and consider that he is writing in public.
A sentiment being common or not is a bit besides the point about whether it's authoritarian or fascistic or whatever.
If you remove the context and the implication from his post, you can make the argument that it's "just" a post saying "enforce immigration laws".
The problem is that the context and the implications are part of his post. He is communicating who he is and what he believes, and for you it's mostly a question of whether you're going to listen to it.
This whole line of discussion is had about DHH in particular decently often, and I find it kinda funny because even beyond all of this I've always heard that he's just kind of a disagreeable person anyways. But I suppose this industry pulls in a certain kind of annoying person.
So in your mind there’s absolutely no subtextual message here in choosing wolves. It would have meant exactly the same thing if he’d chosen raccoons, or pigeons, or deer, or rabbits?
Roma people ("gypsy" is a racial slur for them) were also targets of the Holocaust. As many as 500,000 people may have been put in death camps—justified by views like those expressed here.
Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people who have been present in most of Europe since the 13th century?
This isn't a matter of "political" correctness. This is a matter of scientific correctness. There is not scientifically correct way to express this view because it is simply baseless racism.
> "The historically common term 'Gypsy' is based on the myth that they came from Egypt. In reality, the ancestors of the Romani migrated out of India in the 1st millennium CE."
Egypt isn't a race.
> Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people
I don't propose anything, I asked a couple questions. But if you want me to interpret the position for you: you deport Roma people, and any other foreigners, back to the country they have citizenship in. Their origin is somewhere, and it's racist of you to treat all gypsies as one group.
For any that are citizens of the country in question: well, you don't deport them anywhere. That's not what it means.
> justified by views like those expressed here
No. Sending people home is not the same as genocide, and you really have to work hard at misunderstanding things to have them conflated.
> Anti-Roma racism is a manifestation of individual expressions and acts as well as institutional policies and practices of marginalization, exclusion, physical violence, devaluation of Roma cultures and lifestyles, and hate speech directed at Roma as well as other individuals and groups perceived, stigmatized, or persecuted during the Nazi era, and still today, as “Gypsies.” This leads to the treatment of Roma as an alleged alien group and associates them with a series of pejorative stereotypes and distorted images that represent a specific form of racism.
> Anti-Roma racism did not start with or end after the Nazi era but continues to be a central element in crimes perpetrated against Roma. In spite of the important work done by the United Nations, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and other international bodies, the stereotypes and prejudices about Roma have not been delegitimized or discredited vigorously enough so that they continue to persist and can be deployed largely unchallenged.
---
> Sending people home is not the same as genocide
Home to where? Roma people have been widespread in Europe since the 13th century
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation.
This isn't even his personal blog. It's the company blog of Hey that he's using to push his views. Do you really wanna work with a company whose professional blog references "[insert ethnicity] rape gangs" and "the decline of Europe". He could go full Kanye at any point.
I agree it's quite weird to put it on a company blog, but it used to be that companies and their owners do express their views. As opposed to for example Big Tech, who doesn't express their views, but work very closely with Trump...
Gypsies are a major problem in a lot of cities in Europe... What would be a politically correct way to say that today ?
> Gypsies are a major problem in a lot of cities in Europe... What would be a politically correct way to say that today ?
What is the "politically correct" way to say "Jewish people are a problem"? Roma people ("gypsy" is a racial slur for them) were also targets of the Holocaust. As many as 500,000 people may have been put in death camps—justified by views like those expressed here.
Where do you propose to "deport" Roma people who have been present in most of Europe since the 13th century?
I don't think there is a "correct" way to say "[insert ethnicity] are a major problem". It is simply scientifically/historically/objectively incorrect.
I also don't think they are non existent. But there is also another factor of timezones. I have the impression that there are big differences between the continents. Like depending on time the most top comments might be leaning much more left or right.
The definition of leftists and their distribution would be a fun topic over drinks. Another thing you can consider if leftists in one timezone login at the same time as leftists in another timezone. The rabbit hole is ever deeper.
Let's not have perfect to be enemy of good (or ok, or better than nothing).
In case of Mullvad it's a niche product with many alternatives. Using something else is viable and it is interesting to many in the niche because their ties to far right was secret up until recently.
It might be harder with something like Basecamp or Figma if your job requires it.
It is almost impossible with things like Google.
Yes we should have these comments in every thread about big tech. It doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about Mullvad.
I think many people have absolutely stopped giving money to US corporations that are run by fascists like Musk or DHH. Of course, this is and will never be the majority (many people don't care or don't know), but I am certain it's a non-trivial number of people.
I am sure there are quite a few people out there who have avoided getting a mainstream smartphone setup or other big tech services.
As you wrote yourself, this is not the majority. Quite the understatement.
However, this is only a tangential notion in my comment. What do you think of my (probably not unique or novel) observation that calls for ethical purity seem to be very selective in a way that (in effect!) benefits big tech?
For example: The other person in this very thread who pointed out that Mullvad is not perfectly pure recommended iCloud in their previous HN comment three days ago. Did their attitude change in this three days? Unlikely.
iCloud is a service from a company that deplatforms ICE transparency apps, among many other things. Its then CEO, Tim Cook, personally gifted one million USD to Donald Trump for his inauguration. (The very thing they criticized: "... their CEO is directly funding a far-right ...")
Humans are rarely pure or heavenly. Double standards help incumbents.
I'm not interested in generalising "calls for moral purity" as if all ethical concerns are equivalent.
There is a difference, also, between saying, "I am not morally okay with this, so I am going to do X", vs. "If you don't also do X, you are a Bad Person."
To me, after reading up on the platform of the right-wing party in question and Mullvad's CEO's level of involvement with it, the situation with Mullvad is worse. And because it is a much smaller company, a much greater percentage of my money would go to that CEO in particular. And my choice to pay or not has much more influence on Mullvad than it ever could have on Apple.
Others are free to feel otherwise, and to use their money as they please.
Besides, there are plenty of small company alternatives, like IVPN, which was recommended widely around the time this news broke. And I think that people who found out about Mullvad are likely often the sort to put thought and research into their choice of VPN, rather than just buying NordVPN or whatever based on name recognition only.
A single data point is pretty meaningless. If there were actually data to be found on how the customer base numbers or growth rates of the various VPN companies have or haven't shifted since the news broke, that would be interesting.
Ultimately though, what other people do or don't choose to do is irrelevant to my own choice. Moral purity, as you call it, is impossible. The world is not simple. I am going to do my best to make ethical choices anyway.
Agree fully. Also, using another VPN is simple and possible. Using another mobile platform than iOS or Android is virtually impossible or only possible with a lot of real limitations in your daily life.
And to reply to the parent of this comment: I also wouldn't judge others just because they are a Mullvad customer or whatever.
This is in style now. My tween daughter and her peers all own shoes that look geriatric to my eyes. I see teenagers walking around in New Balance shoes that look like my dad would have owned them 20 years ago.
This is actually not at all style of On shoes. The New Balance / Adidas / Nike 90s "dad shoes" have been cool for almost a decade now (Balenciaga released their "dad" sneaker in 2016).
On shoes look like shoes for retirees right now. Teenagers don't wear On shoes.
The film Crazy Stupid Love features Ryan Gosling telling Steve Carrell he dresses like a stale 40-something divorcee then throwing his New Balance meshy running sneakers off the balcony of the mall. That was 2011.
This model[0] is touted as one of their top three "bestsellers" and is completely unobjectionable, as far as contemporary sneakers go. It's a plain white, leather-looking tennis shoe that doesn't even have their brand's stupid characteristic sole that collects gravel.
Even typically goofy looking Hoka will sell you something appropriate for all-day work wear, anti-slip soles and all.[1] It comes in black, white, and monochrome grey.
Nike doesn't seem capable of making a shoe that looks like a normal person could wear it in real life. Most of them look more appropriate for a space station than planet earth.
Whats surprising to me is that all the brands you mentioned are just so ugly and simply not cool. Nike tries to position itself as Apple of sports but it probably doesn't work that well outside of high tech market because there are still many brands doing the high end at leas as well as them.
Probably because fitness-conscious (i.e. attractive) people started wearing them. And they are expensive enough to show status.
Crazy thick soles have become pretty normalized recently. But I remember when I first bought my Hokas I felt a bit like I was wearing orthopedic shoes like my grandma used to wear. Now I wouldn’t think twice about wearing them out.
I’m not quite sure but Nike really blew up back in the day with a focus on basketball via the Nike Jordan/Air Force One.
More recently I just don’t understand their product line up. If I click on Men’s in the US there are over 700 shoes. How do I even pick? Hello, earth to Nike. Nike is a Greek god. Maybe lean in to that a bit more?
Oh I get it “Inspired by the geometry of modern cities” they’re confused about good design and taking a hint from other dead brands like Hugo Boss or Burberry Outlet or maybe even Armani Exchange!
That’s why richfluencers are buying ON and Hoka and Vuroi and Lululemon still.
That's why it's fashion... I wouldn't say these are comparatively turds at all. I mean some Hoka are OK (except the terrible blue logo) but I don't think you would find single ON shoe thats nicer than the Nikes you linked to.
Which is probably why sales are declining. I wouldn't be caught dead in a shoe that looks like that. What would I wear it with? Jeans? When Nike makes "fashionable" products there's nothing for Nike to sell to me. I guess they can sell it to an NBA player and their entourage. Most people though aren't buying clothes that look like that, just like they're not buying stuff from the runway models.
So you take your customer base from a lot of folks to a small number of folks. It's totally fine and cool to build more niche products (we need more niche products and cottage industries) but if Nike's goal is to stay in the S&P 100 this strategy won't work. Customer base is way too small (and outside of the influencers) and has too few dollars to spend.
I got into Nike shoes in the 2010s because they were really innovative. A sneaker head friend suggested I try a pair of LunarGlides, and they were the most comfortable shoes I ever wore at the time due to their Lunarlon soles. And their FlyKnit uppers that came at bit later revolutionized sneakers. I also really liked their Free Run line (although not actually for running), which had an innovative flexible sole.
I've never been one for fashion, but I thought their tech was awesome. But I can't really think of anything noteworthy since the mid 2010s or so. Their Vaporfly shoes may be a big deal to competitive distance runners, but not really to your average Joe.
So that's my take - they stopped innovating, and other brands caught up and surpassed them.
> all the brands you mentioned are just so ugly and simply not cool
Specific to Hoka: They are a status symbol probably started/hyped by social media. All kinds of people wear them who aren't remotely into running or exercise.
This sounds more like some elitism. Who cares how your coworkers got there, the point is to have good history at the origin. People don't need to see your dirty laundy, there is nothing interesting about it.
> People don't need to see your dirty laundy, there is nothing interesting about it.
We disagree here, thus we prefer different tools. Nothing elitist here.
I have seen git people throwing away repos and start again just to hide mistakes/pivoting and look "pro" and "right from the start". Or worse, I have seen people botching repos to others rewritting history just to make them look clean. I embrace mistakes, and sometimes they become useful later to replay train of thoughs.
Pickled savoury watermelon is something i discovered not that long ago and it really surprised me. It's amazing. I otherwise don't care much about watermelon but pickled it gets so much flavor. I know many people who can't handle it because it "doesn't taste how it looks".
That is actually entirely not what they were saying at the time of the vote and its aftermath. At all.
Go back and read the threads. On this forum, or on mastodon, or on the vote. It was pretty vociferously ... shall we say ... "principled"
It was never stated to be about "low quality" but about use in "large part" or "majority", and when pressed people refused to define what that meant, and in fact got angry and defensive and said things like "you'll know if you've crossed the line" and "stop trying to force consent" and similar pearls of wisdom.
The post-facto rationalization did in fact leave them room to judge "quality" on a purely subjective basis. I didn't stick around to find out how that would shake out.
I assume you are implying that LLM generated projects don't mean bad quality. That's true. At same time we all know what this means. Plausibly looking projects that might even work but have little human oversight. There are so many of them It's really difficult to know. I don't want to depend on such code and I bet neither do most programmers. Why? Because by then you might as well vibe the library yourself and be the one who does the oversight.
I might be wrong but I doubt that people on Codeberg are against use of LLMs that make the projects better. Like finding security leaks. What these rules are aimed at are hosting of endless vibe coded projects that are just copy of each other.
I would encourage you to go back and read what was said at the time. Yes, a significant probably-majority really are against the use of LLMs for anything and the policy was evidently not about a deluge of vibe-slop on the site. Because there was a much simpler answer for that: quotas, specific rules, specific policy, moderation.
Instead a vaguely worded policy was put in around the tools used to write code so that vibe-based judgement could sit and decide without the potential judged having recourse to any appeal. And requests for specificity were not just turned down but mocked. Because the intent was to leave it open so that a process of bullying could be put in place.
Basically, anti-democratic practices masquerading as community/democracy. I used to see this a lot back when I was involved more heavily in left wing activist groups and it was the sign of a declining and degraded community. Sad to see it here.
As for "I assume you are implying that LLM generated projects don't mean bad quality. That's true." I'm specifically saying LLM assisted/generated doesn't mean one way or the other. They're tools.
I love you being heavily involved in left wing activist groups but you are no more because they are anti-democratic. When was that? While you were working at google for 10 years? I think you might be in same situation like atleast third of the people here. Yes Codeberg members did undemocratic poll and they undemocratically voted for this anti LLM policy. I fully agree the left wing of the Codeberg is coopting their project and we should go to support much more democratic Github.
You don't and that's why everyone gets so angry and annoyed when people try to force precise definitions.
There's no team of lawyers verifying the provenance of all code/projects submitted to codeberg. THe policy is just something they can point to as a general guidelines of what kind of shit they want to support.
Everyone knows exactly what kind of projects they're talking about. The people trying to nitpick definitions are those annoying ass people at the board game night that spend half the time combing through the rule book trying to figure out why whatever they didn't like was against the rules.
What the folks involved were actually saying, and what let slip multiple times through all those threads is: Any use of the tool is Wrong(tm). They never meant anything by the "majority" or "vibe-coded" or whatever because they didn't need to or want to; Multiple people let slip in all sorts of forums what the intent was: define a policy ambiguous enough that it could be used for frankly vibe-based exclusion. Defining the terms of exclusion was deliberately avoided because a) if-you-know-you-know b) they wanted to reserve the freedom to sit in judgement.
That's fine for new projects. Their sandbox and they can decide who plays in it. But the people who were using codeberg for months or even years and relying on it, and had to move... deserved better treatment.
Fomr my eyes the questions about what defines "majority" were well-intention-ed queries with the motive of trying to ferret out what the criterion for was in the eyes of the people who proposed the vote. That they refused to answer, and cast aspersions on the people who asked... is both a damning judgement on their personal character but also their community management.
What we have is a community defining an in-group and an out-group. And just like middle school, "you'll just know" if you're in one or the other.,
Good grief. What a bizarre cultish echo chamber. The tools make you dirty. Don't touch the tools.
Why put words in their mouth? They clearly mean a majority. They don't want projects that are majority written by LLMs. If they didn't want projects that an LLM had ever been anywhere near, they would've just said that. They're not under any shareholder pressure to lie.
And now you're literally saying that a "no vibecoded projects" rule is a slippery slope to actual fascism. Good grief! What nonsense!
reply