3 ms·

> The example scenario isn't "person asks the waiter for a hot dog; waiter just keeps walking past them, blanking them as if they don't even exist". First: tha

> The example scenario isn't "person asks the waiter for a hot dog; waiter just keeps walking past them, blanking them as if they don't even exist". First: that scenario is actually still just fine when the establishment is a soup kitchen. When the people providing the service are providing it for free funded entirely out of their own pocket then no user of the free service is entitled to anything, ever. Second: that isn't an accurate description of what happened, as you should know because you read the thread in full. What actually happened is that a maintainer responded to the issue back in January with a soft timeline. OP began harassing that maintainer less than halfway through the provided timeline. When they got ignored for just over a week (which is, again, entirely reasonable especially given that a timeline was already offered) OP proceeded to write not one but three "FUCKUJimmy" acrostics further harassing the maintainer who had provided the initial timeline. Then, on May 9, which is well within the initial estimate, the maintainer provided an update saying that the timeline had to be pushed back. OP's reaction to that was to try to bring the project hate on HN. In what universe is any of this behavior by OP acceptable?

antisol 1y ago
> a maintainer responded to the issue back in January with a soft timeline It seems I missed that comment (https://github.com/vercel/next.js/discussions/64660#discussioncomment-11985463 https://github.com/vercel/next.js/discussions/64660#discussi...). My apologies. There were a lot of comments. I stand corrected, withdraw my support of OP's behaviour, and agree that it's not acceptable. --- > no user of the service is entitled to anything, ever. I say everyone is entitled to basic human decency and acknowledgement of their existence. I say that the waiter walking past and blanking them is rude and a dick move, and not "totally fine" at all. While you are correct that the user isn't entitled to the 10/10 polite response/explanation given in the article, they are entitled to some sort of basic human decency. The waiter blanking them and the waiter responding by calling them a cunt with no provocation are both aggression. I also say that the "soup kitchen" analogy you gave doesn't really hold here - didn't you refer to that maintainer as "an employee"? So it's that person's job to respond to issues. Which entitles people asking them questions to a response. (Which, as I concede above, he did actually get) But now we're debating philososophy, which I specifically didn't want to do. And I've conceded that in this instance your position on OP's behaviour is correct.

antisol 1y ago

> a maintainer responded to the issue back in January with a soft timeline It seems I missed that comment (https://github.com/vercel/next.js/discussions/64660#discussioncomment-11985463 https://github.com/vercel/next.js/discussions/64660#discussi...). My apologies. There were a lot of comments. I stand corrected, withdraw my support of OP's behaviour, and agree that it's not acceptable. --- > no user of the service is entitled to anything, ever. I say everyone is entitled to basic human decency and acknowledgement of their existence. I say that the waiter walking past and blanking them is rude and a dick move, and not "totally fine" at all. While you are correct that the user isn't entitled to the 10/10 polite response/explanation given in the article, they are entitled to some sort of basic human decency. The waiter blanking them and the waiter responding by calling them a cunt with no provocation are both aggression. I also say that the "soup kitchen" analogy you gave doesn't really hold here - didn't you refer to that maintainer as "an employee"? So it's that person's job to respond to issues. Which entitles people asking them questions to a response. (Which, as I concede above, he did actually get) But now we're debating philososophy, which I specifically didn't want to do. And I've conceded that in this instance your position on OP's behaviour is correct.