3 ms·

From the first link in your post: "In fact, Stack Overflow’s 2020 survey found that “developers who are men are more likely to want specific new features, whil

From the first link in your post: "In fact, Stack Overflow’s 2020 survey found that “developers who are men are more likely to want specific new features, while developers who are women are more likely to want to change norms for communication on our site,” a request that’s frequently paired with the terms “toxic” and “rude.”" It is difficult for me to seriously treat an article that considers "rude comments" more important issue than "features". What a regular person wants is something that works. Whether it was done in a way that kept Susan happy is tertiary at best. Is this all that RMS is accused of? If so, I am only glad I am nowhere near that scene. edit: Come to think of it.. is the reason new software sucks so bad lately ( the focus on stupid stuff )?

saghm 4y ago
> "In fact, Stack Overflow’s 2020 survey found that “developers who are men are more likely to want specific new features, while developers who are women are more likely to want to change norms for communication on our site,” a request that’s frequently paired with the terms “toxic” and “rude.”" > It is difficult for me to seriously treat an article that considers "rude comments" more important issue than "features". What a regular person wants is something that works. Whether it was done in a way that kept Susan happy is tertiary at best. I think it's worth considering the fact that calling an issue "stupid stuff" and saying a "regular person" wouldn't care about it is essentially a self-reinforcing confirmation bias. Most people won't try to talk to someone about something if they know they're going to get a dismissive response, but that wouldn't stop them from being more vocal about it in an anonymous survey. If your daily experience differs so drastically from the reported survey results, how would you tell if it was the survey's data that was inaccurate or your own anecdata? Alternately, if you think the results are accurate but that the people who responded to it are out of touch, how would you be able to tell if it wasn't them but actually you?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I know it goes against everything people are being taught today, but not all opinions are equally valid. I will hesitate for a little bit since I know for a fact I do not have all the answers, but eventually my internal firewall will start marking things as "drivel". To be perfectly honest, it is this weird insistence that I not only have to agree with someone's opinion, but act on someone else's belief that I almost automatically pull back and say no. This is not how a conversation works. So thanks to those vocal individuals I mark the use of word "toxic" and automatically dismiss it as a person with no arguments. << If your daily experience differs so drastically from the reported survey results, how would you tell if it was the survey's data that was inaccurate or your own anecdata? Alternately, if you think the results are accurate but that the people who responded to it are out of touch, how would you be able to tell if it wasn't them but actually you? And here I do not have a good answer that would scale. The dismissive approach works well on an individual level. I think experience ( and knowing that surveys have all sorts of flaws ) helps. Now, anecdata has its own obvious issues, but at certain point anecdata becomes data. <<I think it's worth considering the fact that calling an issue "stupid stuff" and saying a "regular person" wouldn't care about it is essentially a self-reinforcing confirmation bias. You might be right on confirmation bias. Still, I challenge you to defend the proposition that focusing on making a given piece of software work or adding features is less important than "toxic" behavior. As a user, do I care that, say, notepad++ was created in an environment that was not "toxic" or that it does what I want it to do and that it does it well? To me, at least, the choice is simple and not controversial at all.
  - saghm 4y ago
    > I challenge you to defend the proposition that focusing on making a given piece of software work or adding features is less important than "toxic" behavior. As a user, do I care that, say, notepad++ was created in an environment that was not "toxic" or that it does what I want it to do and that it does it well? To me, at least, the choice is simple and not controversial at all. For starters, the survey was given by StackOverflow, so my interpretation is that these responses were given by people about what they would prefer as developers working with other developers. It seemed to me that the idea was that some people did not feel like they were being treated fairly when as members of the tech community, but I guess I could be inferring incorrectly. As for the actual question, this seems similar to me to the question of whether we have obligations to others in society or if things are "everyone for themselves". This obviously is predicated on the fact that the complaints of the survey responders are valid (which my previous comment is my attempt at explaining my view on), but assuming they are valid complaints, the question is whether I should care about the treatment of people who made a product that I use. There's a spectrum of potential issues that they could have to deal with; I don't pretend that everyone will react the same way to if notepad++ were being developed by workers who were forced without pay to develop 12 hours a day to if they no longer got free coffee in the break room, but there's undoubtedly a line we have to draw somewhere about what we're willing to tolerate and even a spectrum on what "toleration" looks like. Personally, I don't have any issue with the idea that the people who make the software I use would insist on an environment free from harassment, and I wouldn't want new features at the expensive of the treatment of the people who make it. This feels pretty simple and non-controversial to me, but I guess this could be my own confirmation bias that makes it surprising that anyone would feel differently.

saghm 4y ago

> "In fact, Stack Overflow’s 2020 survey found that “developers who are men are more likely to want specific new features, while developers who are women are more likely to want to change norms for communication on our site,” a request that’s frequently paired with the terms “toxic” and “rude.”" > It is difficult for me to seriously treat an article that considers "rude comments" more important issue than "features". What a regular person wants is something that works. Whether it was done in a way that kept Susan happy is tertiary at best. I think it's worth considering the fact that calling an issue "stupid stuff" and saying a "regular person" wouldn't care about it is essentially a self-reinforcing confirmation bias. Most people won't try to talk to someone about something if they know they're going to get a dismissive response, but that wouldn't stop them from being more vocal about it in an anonymous survey. If your daily experience differs so drastically from the reported survey results, how would you tell if it was the survey's data that was inaccurate or your own anecdata? Alternately, if you think the results are accurate but that the people who responded to it are out of touch, how would you be able to tell if it wasn't them but actually you?

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
I know it goes against everything people are being taught today, but not all opinions are equally valid. I will hesitate for a little bit since I know for a fact I do not have all the answers, but eventually my internal firewall will start marking things as "drivel". To be perfectly honest, it is this weird insistence that I not only have to agree with someone's opinion, but act on someone else's belief that I almost automatically pull back and say no. This is not how a conversation works. So thanks to those vocal individuals I mark the use of word "toxic" and automatically dismiss it as a person with no arguments. << If your daily experience differs so drastically from the reported survey results, how would you tell if it was the survey's data that was inaccurate or your own anecdata? Alternately, if you think the results are accurate but that the people who responded to it are out of touch, how would you be able to tell if it wasn't them but actually you? And here I do not have a good answer that would scale. The dismissive approach works well on an individual level. I think experience ( and knowing that surveys have all sorts of flaws ) helps. Now, anecdata has its own obvious issues, but at certain point anecdata becomes data. <<I think it's worth considering the fact that calling an issue "stupid stuff" and saying a "regular person" wouldn't care about it is essentially a self-reinforcing confirmation bias. You might be right on confirmation bias. Still, I challenge you to defend the proposition that focusing on making a given piece of software work or adding features is less important than "toxic" behavior. As a user, do I care that, say, notepad++ was created in an environment that was not "toxic" or that it does what I want it to do and that it does it well? To me, at least, the choice is simple and not controversial at all.
- saghm 4y ago
  > I challenge you to defend the proposition that focusing on making a given piece of software work or adding features is less important than "toxic" behavior. As a user, do I care that, say, notepad++ was created in an environment that was not "toxic" or that it does what I want it to do and that it does it well? To me, at least, the choice is simple and not controversial at all. For starters, the survey was given by StackOverflow, so my interpretation is that these responses were given by people about what they would prefer as developers working with other developers. It seemed to me that the idea was that some people did not feel like they were being treated fairly when as members of the tech community, but I guess I could be inferring incorrectly. As for the actual question, this seems similar to me to the question of whether we have obligations to others in society or if things are "everyone for themselves". This obviously is predicated on the fact that the complaints of the survey responders are valid (which my previous comment is my attempt at explaining my view on), but assuming they are valid complaints, the question is whether I should care about the treatment of people who made a product that I use. There's a spectrum of potential issues that they could have to deal with; I don't pretend that everyone will react the same way to if notepad++ were being developed by workers who were forced without pay to develop 12 hours a day to if they no longer got free coffee in the break room, but there's undoubtedly a line we have to draw somewhere about what we're willing to tolerate and even a spectrum on what "toleration" looks like. Personally, I don't have any issue with the idea that the people who make the software I use would insist on an environment free from harassment, and I wouldn't want new features at the expensive of the treatment of the people who make it. This feels pretty simple and non-controversial to me, but I guess this could be my own confirmation bias that makes it surprising that anyone would feel differently.