I can't imagine being one of the PMs/higher-ups that decided to allow clipboard content to be shared willy-nilly like this. Like, what must be going through their minds when they make decisions like this? "User experience at all costs?" Seems contrary to their stance on privacy.
Personally I couldn't care less about google seeing whatever junk I sometimes have in my clipboard if it means I can more quickly go to the address I'm looking for
and I'm sure there are many who couldn't care less about the malware running on their windows machine as long as they can browse facebook. What's your point?
> Respect that people have differences of opinion and that every design or implementation choice carries a trade-off and numerous costs. There is seldom a right answer.
> Please keep unstructured critique to a minimum. If you have solid ideas you want to experiment with, make a fork and see how it works.
I am not "anti-CoC" but I do see how the particular wording of this one could be interpreted to silence pretty much any technical discussion that someone doesn't like.
I think many in the rust community would feel the opposite. Technical conversations, especially tough ones, are far easier when you come in with some enforced civility. More people can contribute their differing technical opinions, not fewer.
Not as a doctor, but as software engineer, I teach programming to autistic people that work in the field and are hired because they are autistic, not despite it.
This particular company looks for them, trains them and put them to work on software projects, just like any other software house would do.
One thing they are often bad at is "enforced civility" not because they are uncivil people, but because their though process is different from ours and forcing them to adhere to some rigid form of presenting opinions that has no other use than enforcing a rule just for the sake of it, bores them in the best of cases, makes them angry in others, but makes uncomfortable in general.
You shouldn't decide how people in a community interact with the community, you should value their contributions and just that.
Civility can be enforced of course, but post-facto, after further investigation.
Doing it preemptively in the COC sounds bad to me.
But I could be wrong.
BTW I have interacted with Rust community and have been downloaded every time I've said something on the line of "maybe it's not the silver bullet"
I don't understand why an autistic person would be incapable of expressing a technical issue in a way that isn't sexist/racist, etc, which is basically 99% of compliance with a CoC.
> Nobody said racist or sexist and I don't understand were it's coming from
> We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of level of experience, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, or other similar characteristic.
"Non welcome" doesn't appear in the CoC. The most vague part, I would say, is:
> Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude.
The bar is extremely low here. No one is saying "you have to say please and thank you or you're banned" it's more like don't personally insult people to an extreme. That could be more explicit, since some people may have a harder time interpreting that - seems like valuable feedback.
> An autistic person will react differently from neurotipical when confronted about manners, in a way that the COC forbids
I am quite sure that many members of the rust community are far from neurotypical and they do fine. Autistic people are capable of technical conversations in which they are not attacking people.
Luckily the censorship game in the US is strong, but not that strong. I read a book about propaganda written by someone who wrote it for the US in WW2, and he was able to explicitly state (a chapter or two in) that he only gave examples of axis propaganda in the book because his side's were classified, but to remember that everyone did the same things.
(he did leave for a footnote that for examples of pornographic propaganda one would have to visit archives at an address in Washington DC; guess that'd be the 1950's talking)
If the US is conducting psy-ops on social media against adversaries, wouldn't they use media companies popular in that country? And, if that were Twitter, wouldn't the language barrier still make it relatively harder for Twitter (a company staffed predominantly by English-speaking employees) to investigate?
Additionally, does it merit discriminating between offensive and defensive psy-ops? Might there, for example, be government-controled bots injecting wholesomememes content into the feeds of depressed government employees? Does Twitter have a different obligation in that context?
> wouldn't the language barrier still make it relatively harder for Twitter (a company staffed predominantly by English-speaking employees) to investigate
That doesn't seem to have stopped them from banning accounts posting in Chinese.
> government-controled bots injecting wholesomememes content into the feeds of depressed government employees
That would still be "coordinated inauthentic behavior".
Sure, but you need a handful of units to evaluate them properly. Availability of units is a huge concern and (imo) the largest barrier to boader adoption of non-x86 servers; ie, no sane person would hedge their operations on a single server vendor that can't reliably supply compatible units when needed. At least, not willingly.
