3 ms·

>This is more like submitting your sketches to a public art gallery and then being upset when the public criticizes it. that's not what happened. there weren't

>This is more like submitting your sketches to a public art gallery and then being upset when the public criticizes it. that's not what happened. there weren't simply discussions of the viability or soundness or the crate. there were implicit/explicit demands for changes. so your analogy is wrong again - it would be like submitting public sketches and then facing demands that the sketches be improved. does that sound like something that i as the artist should be comfortable with? more importantly does that sound like something a reasonable person would do (make demands for alterations to sketches submitted to a public art gallery)?

wgerard 7y ago
what are you talking about? The code was submitted to be used by the public as a crate on a public registry. There were ABSOLUTELY discussions of the soundness of the crate - that’s literally what sparked this issue, security flaws in the crate. Are you sure you have a firm grasp on what actually transpired here?
- throwlaplace 7y ago
  your belligerence is completely asinine. the part of this discussion that i participated in branches off of this comment >As a maintainer, it is his choice which patches to accept. PRs were made >And then it happens all over again. More unsafe, more patches rejected, that is an implicit/explicit demand that alterations be made. is that not crystal clear to you?
  - wgerard 7y ago
    And people are allowed to criticize his reluctance to accept those vital security patches, because he submitted code packaged as a crate to be used by others on a public registry. By publishing something to be used by others in a public registry, you are opting in to receive criticism from the public. Criticism is not the same thing as vitriol and I’m not endorsing the latter even one iota. Is that not crystal clear to you?
    - throwlaplace 7y ago
      man i'm glad there are identifying details about you in your profile so i can avoid working with you. you're moving goal posts because you can't keep track of what's at stake. i'm not going to reiterate because for some reason you're entrenched.
      - wgerard 7y ago
        Sounds good.
      - dang 7y ago
        You've broken the site guidelines egregiously in this thread. Since you also have a long history of breaking the HN guidelines, we'd normally ban an account for this, but it has been posting pretty well in recent history, so I won't ban it this time. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html though, and stick to the rules from now on. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        throwlaplace 7y ago
        you know what would be useful mr. arbiter-of-what's-appropriate? if you would point out exactly what you believe i've done that is "egregious" instead of just vaguely alluding to the guidelines page and leave it up to interpretation/divination/mind-reading. as far as i can tell i've engaged in a good faith discussion/debate and it was solely this other person that shouted/antagonized. the only informal (could be perceived as antagonistic) thing i did was remark on how that person was moving goal posts after i clarified and produced reasoning for my position and how i'm glad that one valuable thing that came out of the exchange was i learned to avoid them in the future. as far as i can tell in the comment chain, it was the other person's that got flagged first and was the source of the tension. there's something so aggravating about how you preside (note i didn't call it moderation) over these forums. what is the point of a voting system if you can unilaterally censor and censure? you know what the pretense to "objective" and "rational" discourse of this forum does? it inspires the kind of arrogance you see here on so many posts - absolutist positions on everything from tech to healthcare to history. the brand of yc and you and the rhetoric of the guidelines and you all function as an aegis.
- dang 7y ago
  Please edit personal swipes out of your comments here. It evokes flamewar from others, which is what we got in this case. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - wgerard 7y ago
    Fair enough. My apologies.

wgerard 7y ago

what are you talking about? The code was submitted to be used by the public as a crate on a public registry. There were ABSOLUTELY discussions of the soundness of the crate - that’s literally what sparked this issue, security flaws in the crate. Are you sure you have a firm grasp on what actually transpired here?

throwlaplace 7y ago
your belligerence is completely asinine. the part of this discussion that i participated in branches off of this comment >As a maintainer, it is his choice which patches to accept. PRs were made >And then it happens all over again. More unsafe, more patches rejected, that is an implicit/explicit demand that alterations be made. is that not crystal clear to you?
- wgerard 7y ago
  And people are allowed to criticize his reluctance to accept those vital security patches, because he submitted code packaged as a crate to be used by others on a public registry. By publishing something to be used by others in a public registry, you are opting in to receive criticism from the public. Criticism is not the same thing as vitriol and I’m not endorsing the latter even one iota. Is that not crystal clear to you?
  - throwlaplace 7y ago
    man i'm glad there are identifying details about you in your profile so i can avoid working with you. you're moving goal posts because you can't keep track of what's at stake. i'm not going to reiterate because for some reason you're entrenched.
    - wgerard 7y ago
      Sounds good.
    - dang 7y ago
      You've broken the site guidelines egregiously in this thread. Since you also have a long history of breaking the HN guidelines, we'd normally ban an account for this, but it has been posting pretty well in recent history, so I won't ban it this time. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html though, and stick to the rules from now on. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - throwlaplace 7y ago
        you know what would be useful mr. arbiter-of-what's-appropriate? if you would point out exactly what you believe i've done that is "egregious" instead of just vaguely alluding to the guidelines page and leave it up to interpretation/divination/mind-reading. as far as i can tell i've engaged in a good faith discussion/debate and it was solely this other person that shouted/antagonized. the only informal (could be perceived as antagonistic) thing i did was remark on how that person was moving goal posts after i clarified and produced reasoning for my position and how i'm glad that one valuable thing that came out of the exchange was i learned to avoid them in the future. as far as i can tell in the comment chain, it was the other person's that got flagged first and was the source of the tension. there's something so aggravating about how you preside (note i didn't call it moderation) over these forums. what is the point of a voting system if you can unilaterally censor and censure? you know what the pretense to "objective" and "rational" discourse of this forum does? it inspires the kind of arrogance you see here on so many posts - absolutist positions on everything from tech to healthcare to history. the brand of yc and you and the rhetoric of the guidelines and you all function as an aegis.
dang 7y ago
Please edit personal swipes out of your comments here. It evokes flamewar from others, which is what we got in this case. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- wgerard 7y ago
  Fair enough. My apologies.