One Of LLVM's Top Contributors Quits Development Over CoC, Outreach Program

[starshipeleven]

actually your eligibility to be a student depends on when you were born.

Everyone was a teenager (or will be a teenager) eventually.

Time travel is not possible so you can't blame them for not offering that retroactively for students of any time.

and of course you are not born transgender and people are changing sexes.

transgender is usually "gender dysphoria", aka identify as a the opposite gender. This is a mental condition you are born with, or develops within the first 3 years of age (effectively the same).

I'm sure there will be some rare people that will change sex for other reasons than gender dysphoria, but I would think they are an exception.

[nhaehnle]

Oh look, it's the peanut gallery!

I wonder how many people commenting here have actually contributed to LLVM

Why don't you all go back to pestering Michael about doing more benchmarks instead...

[Aleksei]

this is a special interest group. some people are paying money for what they like. what this has to do with you? make you own group which will pay $10k per month to everyone with name aleksei, nobody will care. why do you care about them?
google has same $5.5k for gsoc students, should i be mad at google because i'm not student?

I care because meritocracy makes for good SW development. Accepting people based on skincolor/cunt/etc quotas invites people with identity politics and leech/victimhood attitudes. I just don't want LLVM to suck.
Also I care because I want to care

[pal666]

Everyone was a teenager (or will be a teenager) eventually.

but gsoc didn't exist some time ago

Time travel is not possible so you can't blame them for not offering that retroactively for students of any time.

but i can blame them for not offering that to non-students, can't i?

[pal666]

I care because meritocracy makes for good SW development. Accepting people based on skincolor/cunt/etc quotas invites people with identity politics and leech/victimhood attitudes. I just don't want LLVM to suck.
Also I care because I want to care

you are just confusing llvm with outreachy. llvm has no quotas afaik. outreachy is nothing of your concern. if you think that outreachy sucks, don't join it - problem solved.

[GI_Jack]

I am not equating them but in both cases people rightly felt unwilling to contribute to anything associated with totalitarian ideologies. Just different degrees of totalitarianism.

You just did dude. Stop

You can not be too vigilant about "soviets", as "nazis" had their Nuremberg tribunal and are widely condemned, while "soviets" did not and are proudly paraded everywhere, from academia to mainstream media. A lot of clueless individuals proudly display a swastika-equivalent hammer and sickle or pictures of mass murderers like Che Guevara.
[/IMG2]

My point was, just like a certain segment of the left likes crying "Nazi" everytime they see something they don't like, you are crying "soviet". There is no viable connection to the soviets here. You are acting like an SJW. I am going to start calling you and the rest of the shitposters in this thread "Right wing SJWs", because you use the exact same tactics.

How the fuck is this related to to the issue at hand? This is my point.

[fctcris]

What citation is needed?

How about Linus Torvalds cussing out people on the LKML? Just a small list here:

https://adtmag.com/blogs/dev-watch/2...lds-rants.aspx


Theo de Raadt likewise going off on rants about new technologies and passing off his opinions as facts or just being generally abusive:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt

How about this advertisement from an ostensibly technical server hosting company:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110209160838/http://img341.imageshack.us/i/qsoladvertisementps2.jpg


Shall I go on? There's no end to this kind of thing in the technology sector. There's plenty of this going on behind the scenes in technology companies that never gets to see the light of day. And none of this is needed to get the job done. What's so hard about "Yes you can do it that way, but consider this way: <code added>" and then adding a technical explanations of the merits, instead of "Did you even bother reading what you wrote? This sucks, do it like this instead: <code added>" I know which one I'm more likely to thoughtfully consider.

Have you tried not being a cry baby? The reason why Theo and Linus act the way they do is to instil fear in developers in order to get them to quintuple check their code. It's worked quite well thus far. As for the ad... WOE IS ME! Imagine that, a sexist ad hurt your fee fees. Do you know what you can do when you find certain ads highly offensive (pathetic)? You can opt not to do business with that company.

As for the idiots defending LLVM: they are diverting resources to fund a blatantly discriminatory program (outreachy). Resources that could be used to fund programmers that wouldn't otherwise be able to dedicate themselves to the project, on the basis of merit, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and so on.

[pal666]

This is NOT an isolated incident, actually is the general trend/in western Europe, USA and other places in developed world, starting with universities

so many anti-meritocrats are in universities?

At least in communism, in STEM fields, no one were discriminated and people were equal no matter what they were woman, men or ethnic minorities.

at least you have no slightest idea what you are talking about. you are just producing purest garbage because your butt is hurting. communism is built on discriminating based on class. and by discriminating communism means killing all people from wrong classes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror

get some education(maybe even at university) and stop making fool of yourself in public
one of many fun facts about stem field in communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

[onicsis]

Yes of course it's not hard quota, it's a soft quota. Just wondering when the Kernel will be next target to be occupied by SJWs.

[GI_Jack]

Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that the SJWs are condeming libertarianism while praising a bunch of communists?

Libertarians say they support civil liberties, they must be the good guys, amiriteguys? It becomes a lot more complicated when you look into anything more than a strictly superficial look at "Libertarianism". Just because the name has "Liberty" in it, doesn't give it an automatic pass. The communists also say they support civil liberties and stuff.

It says a hell of a lot that you people want to condemn those who's whole schtick is basically about making government uphold civil liberties and some basic moral standards (Do not kill, do not steal, etc...)

That is a pretty poor assessment of "Libertarian" ideology. At the very heart of the "Libertarian" ideology is a return to 19th century Laizze Faire economics, that not only failed brutally, resulted in a messy, dangerous, pouted, crime ridden, corrupt bunch of western states, before they abandoned it. Libertarians give fuck all about civil liberties.

regardless of whether you agree with them, while upholding the out and out socialists who support a political philosophy that is responsible for over 100 million deaths, abject poverty and starvation, and numerous oppressive totalitarian regimes around the world... but oh oh right "That wasn't real socialism" and hey obviously it's those libertarians that are the bad guys right?

That claim doesn't stand up to serious inspection either. You will have to give libertarian socialists credit for authoritarian socialist regimes, while not giving credit to authoritarian capitalist regimes to libertarians. And even then, you're going to have to play numbers games with what counts as a "responsible death". For example, you will credit socialist regimes for poverty and illness related deaths, but you will not credit the same under capitalism.

That doesn't even get into brutal dictatorships propped up by capitalist nations. But libertarians can wave the magic fairy ideology wand at that, because?

"That wasn't real socialism"

For every "That wasn't real socialism", you see at least two "that wasn't real capitalism" from the libertarian crowd.I know what a so called "Libertarian" is, and its essentially socialist talking points with socialism and capitalism reversed.

edit: this is all in a thread because a private entity wanted to do with its own money on its own time something people didn't like. That is something that a "libertarian" would be exactly for. Right? Free Speech? Free association? Nope. So much for "Libertarianism"