Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday April 10 2017, @07:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the i-can't-tell-who-is-toxic-anymore dept.

Michael Larabel over at Phoronix brings us news of a stealth Social Justice coup over at FreeDesktop.org:

X.Org, GStreamer, Wayland, LibreOffice, Mesa, VA-API, Harfbuzz, and SPICE are among the many projects hosted by FreeDesktop.org that now appear to be on a contributor covenant / code of conduct.

The Contributor Covenant for those unfamiliar with it is trying to promote a code of conduct for open-source projects that is trying to promote diversity and equality of contributors to libre software projects. From the covenant's website, "Part of this problem [of "free, libre, and open source projects suffer from a startling lack of diversity, with dramatically low representation by women, people of color, and other marginalized populations"] lies with the very structure of some projects: the use of insensitive language, thoughtless use of pronouns, assumptions of gender, and even sexualized or culturally insensitive names."

The covenant states in part that those contributing should use welcoming and inclusive language, be respectful to others, showing empathy towards others, avoid insulting comments, and avoid inappropriate conduct. For the most part, it's basically common sense.

Now it seems this Contributor Covenant is being forced onto all FreeDesktop.org-hosted projects.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday April 10 2017, @03:47PM (9 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Monday April 10 2017, @03:47PM (#491680) Journal

    To quote the C rules of reality..

    If Microsoft aims and shoots their own code in the ass. Reality will reliably deliver the collapse with assured reliability ;-)

    Not counting bad starting point with the betrayal to alphabet soup, poor product quality, work environment that keeps good people away, resentment in their own industry etc.. Shorting them in the market place may turn a profit.

    There IS a reason Americans, Europeans, Australians and Japanese, South Koreans etc comes up with innovative stuff and can make them work and others less so. There's a loose connection to the mythical-man-month dogma too. What's worse is there's whole clusters of people that can't comprehend these less than obvious factors and gets totally lost using metrics that won't give any insight to the factors that matters.

    I'm sure people here noticed the difference in mindset even among people that are superficially supposedly "just like you".

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday April 10 2017, @05:40PM (8 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday April 10 2017, @05:40PM (#491767)

    There IS a reason Americans, Europeans, Australians and Japanese, South Koreans etc comes up with innovative stuff and can make them work and others less so.

    And what do you claim is that reason?

    Personally, I point to religion. Even in Europeans, notice that they are not all equal: the southern ones generally do nothing innovative at all, except the Italians with their cars (Ferrari etc.). Greece and Portugal are economic backwaters. And in the USA, it's the same: the southeastern states don't come up with anything innovative at all. What's the common thread? Religiosity. The southern European nations are far more religious, as are the southeastern US states. And of course the middle east is a hotbed of religiosity. Likewise, south and central America are very religious. In the US, it's the west-coast and northeastern states that do all the innovation (mainly the western), and that's where people are least religious. Japan and South Korea are very non-religious.

    I think the thought patterns that support religiosity are mostly incompatible with innovation in science and technology; with religion you already have all the answers, and are just trying to fill in details, and discarding anything that doesn't fit your dogma. Without religion you have an open mind and are more willing to consider all possibilities. And without religion you're also not wasting a lot of time and money on mythical nonsense and the shysters who push it.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @07:39PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @07:39PM (#491879)

      Correlation is not causation; I think you're overlooking a likely common cause: climate.

      You live in a place with winter so harsh that you've gotta work all summer to prepare for it, that "builds character" (as they say) -- during the winter, you're in the shed making tools to make the coming summer a little easier and more successful. The result is a culture of hard work and innovation.

      You live in a bloody year-round paradise where food practically grows itself, you have time to loaf around daydreaming about gods, and the resulting culture will prioritize leisure and religion.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday April 10 2017, @10:06PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday April 10 2017, @10:06PM (#491965)

        The problem I see with this is the popularity of the Spanish language (and to a lesser extent, Portuguese): those two kingdoms used to be some of the most powerful places on Earth, which is why they were so successful in establishing colonies in the New World. On top of that, before them, the Roman Empire was very successful, and southern Italy is a really nice, warm place too. Before them, several other civilizations flourished in the Middle East or nearby: the Egyptians, the Hittites, the Persians, the Greeks, etc. It really wasn't until much more recent times when the cold places became the sources of successful civilization. Over in the East, India had a very prosperous society 2000+ years ago, but then things kinda fell apart.

        Finally, you don't need a "year-round paradise" to give you time to "loaf about daydreaming about gods"; this is disproven by the Norse. They had a successful society for a time, but they had a very strong mythology which persists to this day with the names of our days (Tuesday through Friday). They absolutely had to prepare for harsh winters.

    • (Score: 2) by Zyx Abacab on Monday April 10 2017, @09:42PM (2 children)

      by Zyx Abacab (3701) on Monday April 10 2017, @09:42PM (#491950)

      An AC made this point, but it bears repeating: correlation is not causation.

      • All the places you name are quite warm, with long periods of little or no precipitation. Temperature has a measurable effect on decision-making [scientificamerican.com]. Why isn't climate to blame?
      • Those places are also generally low-lying, geographically speaking, with large areas of smooth terrain. Why isn't geography to blame?
      • Being more southernly, these places also experience less seasonal variation in the amount of daylight. Why isn't the monotony to blame?

      There are a lot of common factors and any one of them could be the culprit. Evidence is necessary to make this kind of judgment.

      I'm not saying it isn't religion; the reason for a lack of innovation might very well be religion. What I am saying is that your opinion is predicated on a shaky premise.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 10 2017, @10:16PM (1 child)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday April 10 2017, @10:16PM (#491969)

        All the places you name are quite warm, with long periods of little or no precipitation.

        You'll have to support this one. Are you talking about the southerly, uninnovative places? In the American southeast at least, this is completely false: it rains there all the time, and weather is notoriously hard to predict as rainstorms can last for very short periods. Also, South America extends pretty far south; it isn't tropical-warm in south Argentina. And a good part of Australia is pretty warm (even tropical in the north).

        Those places are also generally low-lying, geographically speaking, with large areas of smooth terrain. Why isn't geography to blame?

        Western Europe fits this description very well, and according to Jared Diamond is a big reason it was so successful historically. So why were they successful yet many other places with large areas of smooth terrain weren't? And Japan doesn't fit this description at all (very mountainous), yet also is successful.

        Finally, I point to ancient Rome. It was quite warm, low-lying with smooth terrain, southerly with less variation in daylight, and yet it was extremely successful and innovative for a while, with aquaducts, plumbing, concrete, etc. They had religion of a sort (the Roman Pagan gods), but then notice that after they adopted Christianity, it all fell apart and the innovation was gone. Other ancient civilizations were very innovative too, and had polytheistic religions. Perhaps the common thread is monotheistic Abrahamic religions: places that adopt those in a strong way seem to invariably become non-innovative.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 11 2017, @12:36PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday April 11 2017, @12:36PM (#492231) Homepage
          >> Those places are also generally low-lying, geographically speaking, with large areas of smooth terrain. Why isn't geography to blame?

          > Western Europe fits this description very well

          Ah, yes, the Alps, that well-known salt-flat.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday April 11 2017, @12:59AM (2 children)

      by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday April 11 2017, @12:59AM (#492043) Journal

      I think it's way more to it than religion.

      Historian Niall Ferguson made a TV series [youtube.com] on the "Civilization west and rest, killer-apps" [pbs.org] that points out some factors:
        * Competition
        * Science
        * Property rights
        * Medicine
        * Consumerism
        * Work ethic

      The Egyptian civilization got wrecked by corruption btw. Rome seems to have collapsed when it got big enough that people could adopt values that were countering what made the empire work. Seems quite familiar.. China when they succeeded to quell any dissent. They also quelled any top innovation, ie cannons. The Soviet when initiative of individuals were quelled.

      So fair competition, pursuing science, widespread ownership, effective medicine, production by citizens for citizens, good values on work, saving, academic pursuit and not being stuck with any dogma. Which even scientific institutions seems to fall for sometimes. Did I mention quasi crystals?.. Blue light emitting diodes were also supposedly a worthless pursuit. WWII caused a lot of death. But it made the society as a whole to get science done and do away with the bullshit (lest the opponent wins).

      One can observe that at least USA have deviated from some of these factors:
        * Fair competition is not compatible with bribed senators that write biased laws or sue happy juridical system.
        * Science education has to make use of the full talent pool not just ones with rich parents or other nations that do this lesson will have one up. Though internet is likely to equalize this on a scale and depth many people will not realize yet. Then there's the whole biosciences segment that USA might loose out on because of religions blocks.
        * Property can be confiscated at will by the police for certain crimes, courts are too expensive for ordinary people and the rest can be sued from you.
        * Medicine is being derailed by big Pharma. With more side effects, high pricing and favoring headache pills over real health issues.
        * Work ethic.. if the expectation is that everything is easy, it ain't going to work. Also given the increasing complexity and demand for higher productivity. Continuous academic pursuit is a must. Space-X didn't land first stage by doing the way it has always been done. And now they can crush the competition.

      A society better be aware on a large scale where they are and where they should go lest opportunistic factors wreck it all. Especially by not letting petty affairs grow out of proportion. And I would also say that a society needs to allow healthy partner selection, inbreeding hurts mental capability.

      There's also another system of values to rise even above this. Those lessons can be found by looking at how Nobel prize winners and corporate founders live and value things (hint, they will not watch Kardashian). In the long run few people remember who run the country in 1884 or were rich. But the name and effects of one person that emigrated to USA that year is felt even today. It's still up to people if they will make a difference or pursue nothingness.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 11 2017, @01:37AM (1 child)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 11 2017, @01:37AM (#492057)

        academic pursuit and not being stuck with any dogma. Which even scientific institutions seems to fall for sometimes. Did I mention quasi crystals?.. Blue light emitting diodes were also supposedly a worthless pursuit.

        Yes, scientific institutions do have their own dogmas, but they get overturned eventually, on the order of years or decades, because someone re-investigates and proves the dogma wrong. Look how long it took the medical profession to finally realize how big a role gut bacteria has in our health, and that the appendix isn't a useless vestigial organ. However, we're talking about dogma that only persisted for probably less than a century (it wasn't *that* long ago that germ theory was accepted after all, and we finally learned about bacteria). With religion, however, you can pretty much never really get rid of the dogma, because adherents always believe that the Holy Book is the inerrant "Word of God" and everything else must fit in with that. So while we got stuck with modern medicine overlooking gut bacteria for a few decades or so, we're still stuck with dumb religious teachings that are a couple millennia old, and in the case of the Jews they're stuck with dumb teachings that are quite a bit older than that (such as not eating pork; not that I'm a big fan of pork (I *much* prefer chicken and seafood), but their reason for not eating it is purely stupid, since we now understand how to preserve and prepare it so you don't get sick unlike 5000 years ago). Scientific and religious dogma just don't compare, because of how much faster and easier it is to dispel the scientific mistakes.

        Anyway, about your observations on the USA:
        * Fair competition is not compatible with bribed senators that write biased laws or sue happy juridical system.

        When has this not been the case? And how is it that much better in other countries? Western Europe is probably the least corrupt place on Earth, and maybe Japan too, but every place else is much worse. But in those places, the laws don't foster entrepreneurialism that much either. It's hard to start businesses in Europe because the risk is much higher: if your business fails, you're frequently personally stuck with the debt, as it's lot harder to just declare bankruptcy and walk away, and also failure is not accepted well so it's hard to try again.

        * Science education has to make use of the full talent pool not just ones with rich parents or other nations that do this lesson will have one up. Though internet is likely to equalize this on a scale and depth many people will not realize yet. Then there's the whole biosciences segment that USA might loose out on because of religions blocks.

        Science education and research is extremely worrying in the US now, because of drying-up funding, and also lack of interest from students (for good reason: these jobs (in sciences, different from engineering) don't pay well, and aren't very stable). I expect to see much of that work go to Europe and Japan and even China. The religious nuttery in the US doesn't help, but it really only affects some life sciences, and even there I think has become much less of a factor as they've figured out other places to get stem cells besides fetal tissue. The religious nuts only seem to pop up and block things for very specific issues, not overall (I hate to admit, since I do prefer to bash religion when I can). Climate science is getting a beating now, but I wouldn't call that a religious block, as much as I would a political one: entrenched industries don't want to change and they're using their bribed politicians.

        * Medicine is being derailed by big Pharma. With more side effects, high pricing and favoring headache pills over real health issues.

        I do expect (or at least hope) to see more medicine being done in Europe and Japan. These nations have far better public health systems than we do, and innovations they make to improve health with better medicines will directly translate to savings on their nationalized health programs.

        Especially by not letting petty affairs grow out of proportion. And I would also say that a society needs to allow healthy partner selection, inbreeding hurts mental capability.

        I'm not following; what are you getting at here? Are you saying there should be more encouragement of interracial dating or something? Not that I have a problem with that (I'm in such a relationship myself), but I haven't seen any evidence that, for instance, the current state of white people dating each other outside their immediate families is causing any trouble, or that there's any kind of actual inbreeding going on (except in rural Appalachia which is the common butt of such jokes). Besides, if you look at our genetics, almost all of us humans are inbred, according to what I've read: you can take two random humans from anywhere on the globe outside of Africa, and they'll likely be much more closely related genetically than two chimpanzees from different tribes in the same forest. This is because we (not-subSaharan-African) humans almost went extinct at some point, and we're all descended from that small band of survivors. Sub-Saharan Africans are the exception.

        Those lessons can be found by looking at how Nobel prize winners and corporate founders live and value things (hint, they will not watch Kardashian).

        Yeah, but it's *always* been this way. The "high society" upper classes have always had different pursuits and entertainment preferences than the lower classes. Remember the movie "Titanic" when they showed the upper classes on the ship in fancy dining rooms with impeccable clothing and fine music, and then Jack goes below decks where the lower classes are roomed, and they're playing folk music and being generally noisy and rowdy? It's always been this way; the difference today is that the masses' entertainment options and preferences and musical styles have gained far more exposure due to mass communications and exploitation by corporations, so for instance these days someone in the upper crust probably won't raise any eyebrows by listening to some jazz or classic rock. But the crappier entertainment, yes, they're not very likely to have any interest in (e.g. The Kardashians, Honey Boo Boo, etc.)., but that's true as well of just about anyone with a decent education and some intelligence, not just some ultra-rich people. Seriously, how many people on this site would watch that trash? And how many here are very wealthy (like private jet and mansion wealthy)? And same goes in the "old days" for Nobel winners: they weren't generally extremely wealthy, but they certainly had different tastes than the "rabble" (the lowest classes), and that's still true.

        • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday April 11 2017, @04:04AM

          by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday April 11 2017, @04:04AM (#492121) Journal

          Science in Europe is likely underfunded. Japan has likely insane degree demands. And China have a completely insane justice system and many problems. Adding to their domination explicitly seems wrong in the long term too. They also have a social structure problem that hinders them from getting at their full potential.

          As for climate science block. Political block can almost be as bad as religious ones.

          Money for medicine in Europe will probably be spent on religious nutters and their consequences in the feature. Let's say it's not the native religion that is the problem but a 1400 year old imported one. As for economics if health care cost is shared but tax productivity is not, then the system doesn't perform.

          Petty affairs.. well acting on non-existent intelligence information on what has happened and almost getting sucked into a WWIII without any real payoff. Same for domestic issues, where a sex life of politicians seems to matter more than their policies.

          In some cultures, dating outside cousins or what you parents thought appropriate exposes you to serious retribution. Health clinics in Europe has some shivering statistics.

          The pursuits and entertainment borders is not so much along economic lines but rather in thought and values. People that are curious, inquisitive and thoughtful. Will likely find the new Ferrari and mansion comfortable but boring, neither will the bland mass entertainment be even on the radar. Someone like Musk doesn't buy a fancier super mansion. He builds a rocket and electric car. All too often are there rich people with a character not much more developed than a random factory worker. they have the fine habits but not the intellect to join it.