4 ms·

One last reminder that they once hijacked several open-source repos to inject advertisements for their service into the codebases. https://news.ycombinator.com

One last reminder that they once hijacked several open-source repos to inject advertisements for their service into the codebases. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14836653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14836653

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lzooz 4y ago
Buying something and then changing it is not "hijacking" that thing.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  If you have a nuanced understanding of the language, yes, it is. The common definitions have to do with stealing, but an equally valid definition of the word hijack is to: > take over (something) and use it for a different purpose. Taking over a project so you can have it to advertise your service is exactly that.
  - _cs2017_ 4y ago
    > take over (something) and use it for a different purpose. You are misleading readers in order to promote your agenda. You clearly speak perfect English, so you know what hijack means. "take over (something) and use it for a different purpose." is not found as a definition of "hijack" in any dictionary. "Hijack" implies "unlawfully" or "without having a right to do so". Of course, every word can be used in a slightly different meaning; for example, in software can (harmlessly) hijack an entity (circumventing the usual API for expediency or performance). Such broadened semantics is perfectly fine when there's no confusion about the meaning. Very clearly in the case of OP, there was a clear intention to imply "unlawful" or "without having a right", so this exception doesn't apply. The sad thing is that I actually support your agenda. I just don't support promoting it through misleading statements.
    - BoorishBears 4y ago
      You should let Cambridge know: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hijack https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hijac... > to take control of or use something that does not belong to you for your own advantage: And Encyclopædia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/hijack https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/hijack >: to take or take control of (something) for your own purposes And Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hijack https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hijack > : to take or take control of (something) as if by hijacking > often, specifically : to change the topic or focus of (something, such as a conversation) : REDIRECT It wasn't my statement by the way, I just figure if you're going to nitpick you should at least be correct about the nit.
      - _cs2017_ 4y ago
        Hmm yes you are correct. I didn't realize how common these meanings were...
  - joecool1029 4y ago
    Hey if we're going to talk language, maybe you should just use 'Kife', it looks like Kite and means to steal. (Allegedly derived from Old English word 'kip', net says it's British slang, but I've heard it a few times in northeast US.
- nielsole 4y ago
  The claim in the referenced article is maybe more fitting: > many programmers would consider [this] a violation of the open-source spirit.
_cs2017_ 4y ago
I encourage you and everyone else to follow ethical rules in fighting unethical behavior of corporations. Instead of making the untrue statement above, just say "They used, in my opinion, an unethical way to advertise their product; specifically, they bought OSS products and put their ads in there."

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lzooz 4y ago

Buying something and then changing it is not "hijacking" that thing.

BoorishBears 4y ago
If you have a nuanced understanding of the language, yes, it is. The common definitions have to do with stealing, but an equally valid definition of the word hijack is to: > take over (something) and use it for a different purpose. Taking over a project so you can have it to advertise your service is exactly that.
- _cs2017_ 4y ago
  > take over (something) and use it for a different purpose. You are misleading readers in order to promote your agenda. You clearly speak perfect English, so you know what hijack means. "take over (something) and use it for a different purpose." is not found as a definition of "hijack" in any dictionary. "Hijack" implies "unlawfully" or "without having a right to do so". Of course, every word can be used in a slightly different meaning; for example, in software can (harmlessly) hijack an entity (circumventing the usual API for expediency or performance). Such broadened semantics is perfectly fine when there's no confusion about the meaning. Very clearly in the case of OP, there was a clear intention to imply "unlawful" or "without having a right", so this exception doesn't apply. The sad thing is that I actually support your agenda. I just don't support promoting it through misleading statements.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    You should let Cambridge know: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hijack https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hijac... > to take control of or use something that does not belong to you for your own advantage: And Encyclopædia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/hijack https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/hijack >: to take or take control of (something) for your own purposes And Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hijack https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hijack > : to take or take control of (something) as if by hijacking > often, specifically : to change the topic or focus of (something, such as a conversation) : REDIRECT It wasn't my statement by the way, I just figure if you're going to nitpick you should at least be correct about the nit.
    - _cs2017_ 4y ago
      Hmm yes you are correct. I didn't realize how common these meanings were...
- joecool1029 4y ago
  Hey if we're going to talk language, maybe you should just use 'Kife', it looks like Kite and means to steal. (Allegedly derived from Old English word 'kip', net says it's British slang, but I've heard it a few times in northeast US.
nielsole 4y ago
The claim in the referenced article is maybe more fitting: > many programmers would consider [this] a violation of the open-source spirit.

_cs2017_ 4y ago

I encourage you and everyone else to follow ethical rules in fighting unethical behavior of corporations. Instead of making the untrue statement above, just say "They used, in my opinion, an unethical way to advertise their product; specifically, they bought OSS products and put their ads in there."