Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dropping Profanity In Kernel Code Comments: Linux Gets "Hugs"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This is very stupid. This is something I really dislike from SJW coders, and don't know why Intel is investing time on this (not the first time I see a wasteful patch from them)

    SJW engineers seems to be more interested to solve language issues than technical issues, and that's a bad direction of software engineering.

    In this particular case, people will not die if sh*tty comments exists because some implementations are likely crap, people will die if some bad pointer makes a surgery tool fails, some automatic car gets unresponsiveness, etc... in other words, sh*tty code fails.

    Come on! Those guys need to grow up, this is not preschool. At software engineering world, some people are trying to solve real world problems.

    Comment


    • Why damage the word "hugs"? All this is going to lead to is things like "HUGS YOU!" etc. Why not use the word "trump" (already damaged)... or better, and more in line with Linux, maybe the proper noun, "Reiser"?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by WalterCool View Post
        This is very stupid. This is something I really dislike from SJW coders, and don't know why Intel is investing time on this (not the first time I see a wasteful patch from them)

        SJW engineers seems to be more interested to solve language issues than technical issues, and that's a bad direction of software engineering.

        In this particular case, people will not die if sh*tty comments exists because some implementations are likely crap, people will die if some bad pointer makes a surgery tool fails, some automatic car gets unresponsiveness, etc... in other words, sh*tty code fails.

        Come on! Those guys need to grow up, this is not preschool. At software engineering world, some people are trying to solve real world problems.
        So a few f-bombs in the comments are definitely saving lives then?
        Do you hear yourself, sometimes? Like, when you speak?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Brisse View Post

          So a few f-bombs in the comments are definitely saving lives then?
          Do you hear yourself, sometimes? Like, when you speak?
          Not directly, it explicitly says where ugly code / hack exists and it needs to be replaced. Also makes a direct point when something is very awful. Also, no one waste time adding sh*tty comments.

          A bad code is just... bad, like a TODO tag, a f*cking code is something very wrong and needs to be replaced as soon as possible. When people keep removing "ugly words", you also begin mixing ugly stuff with just "bad" stuff, reducing the severity of mistakes or hacks.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by L_A_G View Post

            While the papers themselves are behind scientific journal paywalls, as all too many scientific papers are these days, here's some articles citing those papers.
            Interesting. I had not seen that.

            However, the relevant paper actually is available for free. (I found it via the Unpaywall browser extension, which adds links to open-access versions on academic journal sites. I highly recommend it.)

            That said, there are some takeaways a lot of people seem to be missing:

            First, from the Atlantic article:

            Instead, this line of research, if it’s replicated, might hold useful takeaways for people who do want to see more Western women entering STEM fields. In this study, the percentage of girls who did excel in science or math was still larger than the number of women who were graduating with STEM degrees. That means there’s something in even the most liberal societies that’s nudging women away from math and science, even when those are their best subjects. The women-in-STEM advocates could, for starters, focus their efforts on those would-be STEM stars.
            Second, that National Review article seems to be operating from that broken American idea that working hard and achieving "success in business" should be everyone's goal unto itself, rather than merely tools for enabling a fulfilling life. (And that's not the only broken thing about the American conception of success.)

            Taken in the context of the closing paragraph of the Atlantic article...

            Then again, it could just be that, feeling financially secure and on equal footing with men, some women will always choose to follow their passions, rather than whatever labor economists recommend. And those passions don’t always lie within science.
            ...it seems to be arguing that "If the welfare state enables women to pursue their passions and their passions, on average, tend to lead them in a different direction than men, maybe we should scale back the welfare state to force them to settle for the lesser prizes of equality and success."

            (Reminds me of that right-winger claim that the left wants equality of results (ie. idealized communism) rather than equality of opportunity.)

            The Psychology Today article mostly goes into examples of specific cognitive differences which, last I read about them, were treated as not proven to be causally connected to broader trends because scientists have been burned multiple times in the past over assuming that they were.

            (There is a history of scientists discovering that women actually could and did match men in metrics assumed to be inherently different once discouraging social factors were reduced sufficiently... they just developed different mental algorithms for high-level tasks, better suited to their strengths and weaknesses. Same basic phenomenon as how, male or female, some people do mental math visually and some verbally. Richard Feynman actually noticed that about mental math when he found that he and his (male) colleagues couldn't do the same kinds of multitasking because they could only do one verbal and one visual task at the same time.)
            Last edited by ssokolow; 03 December 2018, 06:13 PM.

            Comment


            • Ping!

              Michael, moderation please? I got my reply flagged as spam by editing it to add a link to a TED talk.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rmoog View Post
                Replace CoC with Sharia Law.
                All credit goes to Imam rmoog!

                Originally posted by Brisse View Post

                You are twisting the actual meaning of the Sharia Law. The Sharia Law is in place to protect the people working on the kernel. This was a patch for removing profanity in the code, which does no harm to anyone and in no way violates the Sharia Law. It's so funny to read through these comments with all the immature little manchilds being offended over this. Seriously, you all deserve to be offended. I hope it hurts as bad as it looks judging from the comments. This patch is the tiniest, most innocent thing ever, and this comment section blows it completely out of proportion. Try to think about that for a second, and try to figure out who is the more sensitive snowflake. The person making the patch, or the ones complaining about it? Spoiler alert: The latter.


                The first comment I quoted is not called for, however, the seconded comment I (kind of) quoted is my favorite in this thread. There is a lot of complaining in this thread but very little explaining. I'm honestly not convinced the CoC changed much. The only reason any of Linus's past behavior was OK because he, as the project head, SAID IT WAS. Once Linus changed, all of the profanity and name calling became bad. Only because Linus, the project lead, apologized for his past behavior. I just cannot see justification for a conspiracy.

                Yes, I understand PC culture can be annoying. In fact, the culture causes me to roll my eyes very frequently due to all of the hypocrisy. However, this situation seems to be the leaders of a community agreeing on rules of said community. We have it at all levels in society:

                1) The rules of a certain basketball team set by the coach
                2) The rules of that league that every team must follow whether the coach likes the rule or not
                3) The rules you follow at work
                4) Local laws
                5) State Laws
                6) Perhaps, you follow a religion which contains laws as well (as mentioned in Imam @rmoog's post )
                7) The unspoken rules of society/ your own culture

                CoCs seem to be natural to me. Some of you are acting like it's a secret government ploy to make Kayne West the head of the Linux Kernel project... unless there is something I'm not just getting.

                Brisse
                It seems to me that Linus never showed any type of hatred towards the race, etc of a person; but he did apologize for a lot of profanity and name calling. You are doing quite a bit of name calling in this thread... Linus will not be OK with this!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
                  (Reminds me of that right-winger claim that the left wants equality of results (ie. idealized communism) rather than equality of opportunity.)
                  I'm personally on the left (you could describe me as something of an traditional liberal), but the right aren't wrong about how a lot of people on the left who talk about the "wage gap" use the awful 77-cents-on-the-dollar figure. This figure ignores average differences in occupation, hours worked, years of experience, part vs full time work, willingness to do inconvenient shifts, willingness to and priorities in wage negotiations, willingness to travel long distances for work and even specializations within occupations along with a host of minor things. The upshot of this is that the "wage gap" kind of dies a death by a thousand cuts and merely becomes an "earnings gap" explained by average differences in choices and priorities between the genders.

                  Particularly wage negotiations skew earnings-based comparisons as, on average, men tend to negotiate specifically for salary while women tend to negotiate for more personal convenience. Not that either priority is wrong, I can easily understand both, but to say that a difference in earnings is a sign of discrimination is quite misleading when the goals of each group are so different.

                  Comment


                  • I do not find that misquote funny at all. In my eyes, that is slander. If any moderator sees this, I humbly ask of you to fix the misquote in post #129 in accordance with the forum rules.

                    Also CTown , I have no idea why you are rambling about Linus. This really has nothing to do with him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by L_A_G View Post

                      I'm personally on the left (you could describe me as something of an traditional liberal), but the right aren't wrong about how a lot of people on the left who talk about the "wage gap" use the awful 77-cents-on-the-dollar figure. This figure ignores average differences in occupation, hours worked, years of experience, part vs full time work, willingness to do inconvenient shifts, willingness to and priorities in wage negotiations, willingness to travel long distances for work and even specializations within occupations along with a host of minor things. The upshot of this is that the "wage gap" kind of dies a death by a thousand cuts and merely becomes an "earnings gap" explained by average differences in choices and priorities between the genders.

                      Particularly wage negotiations skew earnings-based comparisons as, on average, men tend to negotiate specifically for salary while women tend to negotiate for more personal convenience. Not that either priority is wrong, I can easily understand both, but to say that a difference in earnings is a sign of discrimination is quite misleading when the goals of each group are so different.
                      *nod*

                      My issue is more to do with the simplistic and misleading nature of the argument, and its intent to tar all opponents with the same brush.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X