SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Rafael Avila de Espindola, one of the top contributors to the LLVM compiler toolset, has cut ties with the open source project over what he perceives as code of conduct hypocrisy and support for ethnic favoritism. In a message posted to the LLVM mailing list, de Espindola said he was leaving immediately and cited changes in the community.
LLVM project founder, Chris Lattner responded; "I applaud Rafael for standing by his personal principles, this must have been a hard decision." Lattner also insisted that "it is critical to the long term health of the project that we preserve an inclusive community."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
LLVM Contributor Quits Citing Inclusivity Intolerance
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 143 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Any woman is a volume if one knows how to read her.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday May 04 2018, @11:29AM (38 children)
The rest of the document is a clarification of these rules. I'm not sure which of these you object to. From your posting history, perhaps it's 'be respectful'. In general, the LLVM community does a good job of living up to this set of rules. There are a few things I'm not tremendously happy with (such as the fact that there is a committee tasked with enforcing the CoC that is not accountable to the community, but the people on it are all people that I respect, so I'm not overly concerned).
I have a lot of respect for Rafael and I don't wish to second-guess his departure, but the CoC is far from the only thing that he's been unhappy with recently. I suspect that this was a convenient excuse for him, rather than the underlying reason for his wish to move on.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SparkyGSX on Friday May 04 2018, @11:47AM (1 child)
I was about to post the same; I fail to see how anyone could find that CoC offensive. It shouldn't have been necessary to have in the first place, or to write more than "just be a decent person", but I can't find anything unreasonable in there.
The "outreachy" thing, on the other hand, I find extremely offensive, and I very much doubt it's legal. Reading that, I can't really help but think "if those people need such outrageous things to get in, they must really suck at what they do".
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday May 09 2018, @11:05AM
I've brought this up in other parts of the thread, but I'll repeat it here. Outreachy is sensible. White men have an overwhelming advantage in the current tech industry, even today. We have an easier time getting interviews, easier time passing interviews, easier time getting promotions, and so forth even when you control for skill, experience, and age level. Outreachy is just an attempt to balance the scales - provide other advantages to people that aren't white, aren't male, or both - so that their career chances are equivalent to ours.
There is a myth in our industry that it's close to an ideal meritocracy. It's not. Obviously a complete buffoon isn't going to go anywhere. But a lot of the determination on who gets promoted and who gets selected to work on important projects has an enormous luck factor.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Lester on Friday May 04 2018, @12:19PM (12 children)
I agree. Those points are just common courtesy.
Just nitpicking, the only point debatable is the one I have marked. The other points are quite clear and most people "Yes, that's a threat, a insult, doxing, sexual or violent material", but when I joke is nice or discriminatory is many times debatable. Who decides? etc. But, as I said before, just common courtesy
Probably, the problem is other. Rafael Avila said he has bad experiences about CoC. I think he feels that this CoC is only the beginning.
I can understand him. To start with, Why do they need a CoC? have been there many inappropriate messages in the list? So if list was working well and someone comes up with a CoC that hasn't been need so far (we write a CoC "just in case") , it will be expanded ("just in case") and the end is that CoC, and so project, will be taken over by SJW, that have time to do such things because they don't waste time coding.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Friday May 04 2018, @12:53PM (10 children)
The reason I would do it - is so that if someone is being an asshat, one has a document to point at to justify whatever sanctions. It is harder to say "you are being an asshat so we are going to sack you" than to say "you have breached this and that item in our CoC so we are going to sack you". "Asshat" is ill-defined and arguable whereas the CoC is less so.
(Score: 2) by Lester on Friday May 04 2018, @02:26PM (1 child)
That is the logical reason of existence of a CoC. If things stop there, fine. The danger is that CoC may become a cargo cult, with every body fighting for it
Rules (written or unwritten) are politics. Politics are necessary, but politics take time, so every organization should have only the minimum politics (that is why "Benevolent Dictator for Life" is so efficient). Most people, me for example, don't like to devote long time to politics, so let other people waste their time on politics. When people see a debate on TV, they change of channel and when I said everybody fighting for it, in fact it is a relative small group of people. The final result may be that those who do less and devote more time to politics are the ones who mark the policy of the organization. In OSS, SJW have found a place to play.
That is what I think Rafael Avila is afraid of. That it is just the beginning. He says he has seen that path in other projects.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:55AM
Of course. The people who are going from project to project and agitating for CoCs already have the "Diversity and Inclusion" initiatives from those other projects already ready to impose. They have all of the arguments from previous projects how the "Inclusion initiatives" are required to give the "spirit of the CoC meaning" and all that other $current_year babble. The people pushing these are a hostile force, they do not care about the projects they infect and could care less if they destroy most of them. Any entity not under their control is an enemy, any though occurring that they do not police is a danger.
And consider this. No SJW converged entity has ever been cleansed. Not just in software, none. Ever. They themselves would gleefully destroy any that appeared to be slipping from their grasp so there is no point even trying. When they consume one the only rational response is to, after having fought the takeover with maximum effort, quickly abandon it. Most software projects do not have a lot of resources that can't be quickly replicated, even the name is something everyone is by now accustomed to having change. Fork em and move on. Unlike say the Boy Scouts, who have extensive resources and history but the same solution applies, as painful as it might be you have to just let it go and fork.
The SJW locust produces nothing of value, deprive them of your contributions and that will quickly become apparent. And after the fork establish a simple CoC that simply says:
1. Be excellent.
2. Don't be a jerk, we don't want to ban anyone who is contributing but we also don't want to have to stop our own work to teach you basic social skills either.
3. We are working here. A few offtopic posts, lulz, bantz, etc. is a cultural tradition that fosters our community but there is a place for flamewars and other offtopic crap. 4chan. Use it.
4. Anyone proposing a change to this document is banished for life from {name of project}.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Friday May 04 2018, @02:58PM (4 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @04:35PM (3 children)
Hopefully we'll never work at the same place. Ever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @06:33PM
Is that because you're the asshat who writes good code or the asshat who writes CoC's and mission statements?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @09:59PM
No risk of that, my company doesn't hire transsexuals.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Arik on Saturday May 05 2018, @04:05AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by loonycyborg on Friday May 04 2018, @04:21PM
That is just a good path for even more dramas stemming from rules-lawyering. Because in most cases that would be just smartasses trying to bend those rules for maximum mischief. Childish and counter-productive behavior can be already be stemmed by moderators of mailing lists and other public places. If this is not enough for a particular project then CoC will make things only worse.
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Saturday May 05 2018, @03:53AM (1 child)
> "Asshat" is ill-defined and arguable whereas the CoC is less so.
And you think "discrimination" isn't ill-defined? You should be thankful you haven't met one of these mighty warriors. They make Cardinal Richelieu look like a pansy. The Cardinal needed six written words to condemn an honest men; a righteous warrior needs only that you exist.
I'm not even joking. Your very existence exudes privilege and if you aren't groveling for the under-privileged, you are an enabler discriminating against minorities.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Saturday May 05 2018, @12:05PM
In UK "discrimination" is pretty well defined in law.
https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights [www.gov.uk]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:44AM
Those points are sufficiently elastic that virtually anything that someone regards as common courtesy are violent assault or similar to someone else. For starters, "holding a door open for the person behind you" is "non-contact rape" to some SJWs. So you've gone from "common courtesy" to "rape" in a single jump, and both describe the same action. By not defining, or even giving examples, of what permitted and non-permitted behaviour is, all the above list is doing is giving the SJWs a hitlist that they can apply to anyone they don't like.
For another, unrelated, example, read the constitution of the Soviet Union. It's actually very reasonable, in some cases better than the US one. However, would you rather live in the US or under Stalin and the Soviet constitution? It's all a matter of interpretation.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by unauthorized on Friday May 04 2018, @01:28PM
Two words: selective enforcement. "No tolerance for intolerance" and all that jazz.
University professor making a "joke" about white genocide [cnn.com]? Oh dear, we better slap him on the wrist. Now imagine the shitstorm if it he had said black genocide. The university would have totally just given him a stern talking right?
This is the moral authoritarian of the ages in a nutshell. When it's for "the greater good" everything is justified, and when it's against it we shall nitpick and lionize every minor transgression. A Few decades ago, it was the God-botherer traditional right. Today, the SJWs have taken their place. Different ideologies, same abhorrent authoritarian mindset - the "priesthood" of the "moral good" can do no wrong and you better fall in line or they'll do everything they can to make your life miserable.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Jiro on Friday May 04 2018, @02:58PM (1 child)
There's also this: "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare cases, affect a person’s ability to participate within them, when the conduct amounts to an egregious violation of this code." Which amounts to "we can punish you for anything you say anywhere on the Internet. However, it's at our discretion, so we won't use it when someone we like makes a comment on the Internet about a group we don't like".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @05:00PM
yeah, or "if your comments stir up enough shit to make us look bad, even if it's our pals stirring up all the shit, we may have to let you go, b/c we're a pack of sneaky weasels"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @03:49PM (2 children)
From his message:
The #2 he references [outreachy.org] is also linked in the summary. I believe, based on his email, that he is objecting to this section:
Of course, that's just my interpretation of his email.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 05 2018, @04:28AM
Wow. They could shorten that a lot by just saying "You must not be a straight white male".
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday May 05 2018, @04:42PM
> gender-free
Identify as a robot, problem solved. Pretty effortless for coders too. I'll close one eye and speak slowly to you, too.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday May 04 2018, @04:15PM (14 children)
Being "kind" means hiding things that others would rather not see, it means refraining from pointing out obvious flaws in others or their work. This is a good thing in normal human social interaction, but it's dangerous and counterproductive in a technical conference or project.
"Welcoming" again is a good thing in a social group but not necessarily so in a technical environment, and if you read further that bullet point turns into a catechism of identitarianism, a litany of group identities for whom reverence is required.
All contributors MUST without fail be welcoming to "any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, colour, immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, family status, political belief, religion or lack thereof, and mental and physical ability."
*"I'll speak bluntly. If your mental ability is simply average, let alone below average, you're probably not going to be able to do anything useful here."
That statement right there would appear to be in violation of the CoC, and enough to get me banned/ejected etc. under it.
And keep in mind the whole POINT to having a policy like this is so they have something in writing to point to in court, after you sue them, after they have you beaten and thrown out for saying something unkind or unwelcoming (which happened to be true and relevant but that doesn't matter.)
I don't blame him a bit for refusing to sign it. He's right, it's a trap. This is effectively the death of the project. You don't continue to produce technical excellence in an environment where this sort of thinking has taken over.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday May 04 2018, @08:42PM (13 children)
Obligations to be "kind" and "welcoming" are out of place and actively counterproductive here for a start.
I beg to disagree. Kindness has nothing to do with refraining from pointing out obvious flaws in work. It has everything to do with *how* one goes about doing so and to be sure that the flaw is, in fact, a flaw before doing so. (As opposed to attempting to be vindictive against somebody because you just don't like them.) Everyone knows 2+2 is 4, but maybe one should be careful that one isn't seeing 1+3 and taking difference to it. "Friendly, polite, cordial." You can point out any number of flaws while being so. In a respectful and cordial manner. (And I suck at this sometimes, too. Obvious facts should be obvious, and when one feels they aren't it is easy to become critical of the person and not the message.)
Just like this. I disagree with you. Yet I know you do a lot of good thinking.
Yes, it might well. Whether someone can contribute, or is allowed to contribute, may be separate from the tone and attitude espousing the sentiment. "Blunt speaking," is often a euphemism for, "I am not going to take the time to show any respect." You can respectfully tell somebody that you appreciate their willingness to contribute but are uncertain if there are any immediate needs for which their talents fit. You can respectfully declare that you have a tough project that will require an above average team to manage. But unless you are qualified to declare an assessment someone's mental ability it might be better to remain silent on why you don't believe any particular person will be able to do something. Put another way, yes, your statement is completely unwelcoming and sounds out of place. There are alternative ways to express what you're trying to get at without being dismissive and negative.
The point of having policies such as these are to establish ground rules and to communicate norms of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. And yes, it is a defense to a project to declare rules of interaction and hold people responsible to them. It points to why someone cannot behave in a manner that is unprofessional and still expect to be permitted to contribute.
We'll see. You also do not attract talent capable of working socially by permitting a socially hostile environment. Generally, a group that can work together well will end up outperforming lone entities who can only get along in limited fashion. Sooner or later the toxicities will end up poisoning the group, IMVHO.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Friday May 04 2018, @11:35PM (4 children)
Some of us feel that the toxicity brought by the CoC-crowd far outweighs that of an asshat who performs better-than-competent work, however.
All I'm advocating for here is tolerance of those technically skilled individuals who don't match the standards of the CoC crowd, as opposed to tolerance of those socially skilled individuals who don't match the technical standards of the software development project/crowd.
Does that sound hypocritical? Probably, but we're in the business (sometimes literally so) of producing good quality functioning code. Technical ability directly impacts that. Social ability secondly so. Therefore I place more importance on technical ability.
It's all on a spectrum though, as most things are. If you're too excessive an asshat your net worth will be negative and you should be asked to leave. As in, if the behaviour/words/changes you're bringing to the project cause more competence to leave, you should have the grace to sod off. That behaviour is something I've only observed from asshat developers, not asshat CoC-pushers however. Possibly because I stay clear of the latter so I'm not around to see them own up to their mistakes.
Anyway, it's the intolerance in the name of tolerance that really grinds my gears. It's false advertising and double-speak at its best.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Sunday May 06 2018, @07:27AM (3 children)
Yes. This was true for a long time. The socially maladept who just has the technical chops to get away with, well, whatever they want. Because they're just so darn good.
There was a passage in Saturn's Race by Niven and Barnes that explained it far more effectively than I possibly could. Fiction, yes, but it had a good ring of truth to it. The notion was that while in the past you could have stars-with-social-bristliness on a team who could be tolerated because of their quality of work. But in the future that pattern doesn't hold. Because those little issues end up disrupting the teamwork and there is no shortage of talent in the future. Your team-with-the-one-thorn will be beaten by the team that works together smoothly without the thorn. It will be interesting to see if that holds true.
When I first read that it scared the hell out of me. Because like a lot of people who become technically adept, I earn my technical chops exactly because I was socially maladept. I'm not always so good now, either, at the niceties of social grace when challenges are on the line. I have to work at it. So I do.
The weird part is that the best of the best that I know have no detectable problems with basic respect and sociality. I'm not talking talking-over-the-water-cooler. I'm talking about seeing others as people too.
But I'm not sure we're quite so much in disagreement. I recognize the desire to hold technical adeptness in first place. It can work. However, let's see how that holds up. Let's say you have an individual on your team who is a stone cold genius except that every time you interact with him at all he mentions something about those goddamn ______________'s who are screwing up the _________________. Pick any group name and any issue you would like, just so long as you personally know a and respect a member in that group and that the issue is one you care about. I can think of at least five different word pairs, most of them diametrically opposed. If you need help, make it a group your spouse (or child) is part of and the issue is a cause you would either give your life for or think is critical to the future of your children. Is that behavior acceptable? (If it is you've picked the wrong combination of words.) If it isn't, what is appropriate to do now?
Pick the right combination of words and you figure out if you are a human being or a robot.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Sunday May 06 2018, @08:11AM (2 children)
Tell him that arguing over this isn't what we're getting paid to do, and I'm not interested in hearing about it?
If he keeps up after that, he's obviously not the genius he's made out to be. It's not the topic that brings the conflict, it's the inability to shut up about it. See also some sports fans, particularly of opposing teams.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday May 07 2018, @02:00PM (1 child)
Not a bad answer, but this is a serious and hardcore xenophobe/misogynist/misandrist/transophobe/Cubs fan ( ;) ), and he or she won't stop. Yet they are the persons who can solve the problems that nobody else on the team can.
Anyway, I regret that CoC's are around as well. Because they shouldn't have to be, nor should Codes of Ethics where applicable. Yet they exist to define unacceptable behaviors that at root should have been socially corrected in Kindergarten or 1st grade. People should be able to figure out correct behavior simply from putting out what ethical principles are acceptable, but there are people who won't. Ulitmately they seem sadly necessary to me.
There's always the, "if you mind, find an environment that doesn't have one," possibility. Vice-versa is of course an option, but society sets an upper bound as to what will be allowable in any event. [eeoc.gov]
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 08 2018, @06:19AM
Then it's over to the dreaded "performance management" track, and/or for the leadership to decide who is more important to the company. If the person is such a key part, is getting said person to work remotely an option? Also, whoever hired the person in the first place needs to be had a chat with - either to ensure you don't hire that type again, or to ensure you only hire people like that/who can work with people like that.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Saturday May 05 2018, @01:08AM (2 children)
This is how productive environments work. People focus on the job to be done, not stroking each others egos.
"You also do not attract talent capable of working socially by permitting a socially hostile environment."
Depends on what kind of talent and what you mean by socially hostile. What you call socially hostile is a warm and nurturing environment for a budding tech. Yes, a budding socialite would find it horrifying, I know. The solution is to get the socialite out of the environment where he doesn't belong, not to alter the environment until he's comfortable there (and the folks that were actually doing the work are now no longer comfortable, and leave.)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:13AM (1 child)
Calling something garbage doesn't point the way to change.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Sunday May 06 2018, @04:36AM
It's nice of people to help you, but you can't just conscript people and force them to be your unpaid tutor.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:05AM (4 children)
I try to avoid double replying but this just keeps coming back to me.
You're RIGHT! And this is why socially retarded but technically adept people manage to coöperate effectively! Because we do NOT typically take much time to show respect up front. Our culture places this value very low on the scale!
We do NOT take the time to show any respect for your retarded submissions! True! And we wouldn't want you to do that for ours either! What point would that serve? If I submit something that's bad then tell me it's bad. I'd appreciate you telling me *why* it's bad but I can't reasonably demand it. Because a million people could be submitting bad code every week.
You show respect AFTER something of value has been contributed! NOT BEFORE! If that's too harsh for you, then there are plenty of other fields that don't work that way! If you're building systems on which human lives depend, then you need to be able to set your ego aside and learn from harsh criticism!
No one likes to be wrong but anyone that's been in a position where they make the call is sometimes wrong! The acid test is how you respond when you are wrong and you are called on it.
Do you play victim? Do you try to coërce everyone around you into covering for you and/or sharing the blame? Do you use those social skills to shield you from the consequences of your mistake, even from ever admitting you were wrong?
Or do you say "oh shit! you're right! I'm on it!" and get your ass in gear and do everything humanly possible to mitigate your mistake?
I do the latter. I want to work with people that do the latter. I want any sort of critical utility upon which my life depends to be staffed with people that do the latter.
And if that hurts your feelings? Good. You needed your feelings hurt. Go savor the pain somewhere else, and let us work, please and thank you.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Sunday May 06 2018, @06:58AM
No, you are still quite incorrect. If you cannot show respect for all people because they are people, and not your little code-contributing robots, then you have already done nothing and can do nothing worthy of respect. I don't particularly care what your technical acumen is. A person who doesn't look at another human being and see that person as human first has no purpose. Period.
Technically adept people can cooperate effectively in some circumstances. It has little to do with technical adeptness. It may have something to do with technically adept people respecting that very adeptness in others. Which is fine until you start devaluing other people as people on that basis. The latter isn't fine.
You can criticize all you want. You can point out a million and one errors and save a billion lives indirectly. If you cannot care about others first then you are nothing, and you have nothing.
People who are shown respect will do exactly what you propose: They will care about the project at hand and move to fix it first. In fact, they will be looking for the problems before you can find them and call their attention to it.
And what I am not saying is you cannot tell somebody they are wrong, or that they have made an error, or even a serious error that must be handled immediately because [pick any number of good reasons here but let's say lives are on the line] that you don't have time to spend so many words on. Nor do you have to prioritize jobs based on a democratic or egalitarian system. (Though a public open-source project may have different apportionment goals.) You can hold people accountable - I am in such a profession now and transferring to another. What I am saying is that when you do, you do so in a manner consistent with some pretty basic and elementary recognition you are talking to a person and not a machine. And it reads to me like you are fairly good at exercising a whip hand and thus have nothing but whipping posts working for you. Sad if true.
Or, you can keep going. Eventually you'll buy yourself a hositle work environment or other harassment lawsuit in the process, which is the penalty for managers who do not understand basics like this. Uber's learning that lesson now, somewhat. Probably not fast enough.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday May 07 2018, @12:24PM (2 children)
And then you lose contributors. I've been an LLVM contributor for about a decade, and I'd be annoyed to see this kind of attitude from any member of our community. We have a large number of very productive developers who produced absolute crap in their first patches (myself included - reading my first clang commits from 2008 really makes me cringe - in my defence it was the first nontrivial C++ code I'd written ever and the first C++ code I'd written in about 5 years). The community thrived because people were willing to encourage new contributors and to provide helpful and positive feedback. After a little bit of that, it becomes self sustaining and these people are not only positive contributors, they're also mentoring others. I've been paid to work on LLVM-related things for a lot of the last decade and the community is a big part of the reason that it isn't just something I stop as soon as the working day ends, but instead something that I've been willing to give up my free time to help grow.
I've been in other open source communities where people have the attitude that you have. I've contributed the minimum that I needed to get the work done, and I've moved on and been thankful that I didn't have to deal with them anymore. These projects have very rarely thrived.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 07 2018, @06:25PM (1 child)
/me shakes head.
You seem to be sincere so I'm going to try to be nice, but that was a dumb post no matter how you read it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday May 11 2018, @05:01PM
Linux isn't doing so well. Google is investing heavily in Fuscia because the Linux community is so painful to deal with. I'm hearing the same from a number of other companies: it's hard to find people who are competent to do kernel work and willing to interact with Linus and his group. Most of the success of 'Linux' is the success of other projects (Android, KDE, GNOME, and so on), or of out-of-tree forks of Linux (e.g. ChromeOS).
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 04 2018, @05:11PM (1 child)
He very specifically objected to the elevation of women, gays, trans, and any and everything else above real males. I cited the upskirt project above. They were a deplorable collection of sexists. Here, we have a different kind of sexists, targeting males - and you seem to miss that they are deplorable.
Different strokes for different folks, and all - but the project is no less sexist than upskirt was.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday May 05 2018, @06:54AM
The code you linked above looks like it has been cleaned up from anything naughty which might have once been in it. But who cares anyway? It is an open source project, the people doing it were enjoying themselves and everyone else got free use of the work. Maybe they were trapped in a SJW hellhole workplace and this was how they blew off steam after hours. Shoulda used nom-de-plumes for that sort of thing of course, lots of potential for even more antics. Even more hilarity had they included a script to flip all the variables between naughty and nice like there used to be for the old SATAN vuln scanner which could be built as SANTA with a switch when some usual suspects complained.