1000 times this. Apple just wants to use fed.gov to try and kill off their competition. That's it. This isn't about some push for users privacy or to reign in the data collectors.

With all that being foisted on "private" reactors one could think that you're pushing an agenda that has less to do with saving the world and more to do with other things. The reality is quite simple. If you want to reduce world wide carbon foot prints, we can either do the rational thing and embrace something that can do the job today or we can just condemn most of the planet to poverty and worse.

Personally, if my choices are live within 10 miles of a coal fired power plant or 10 miles of a reactor, I'll take that reactor immediately. Of course, if you'd rather live with higher levels of radioactive release and all that lovely carbon...

Yeah, it's a shame that a couple of good ideas are bundled up in a package of (in my opinion) absolute crazy.

Huh, it would strongly appear that as long as you're a SJW blessed entity you can pretty much get away with murder while if you're one of the evil non-SJW classes you will be ignored and are a fair target for any kind of harassment, abuse or anything else so long as one cloaks it in SJW non-sense.

Yeah, and people wonder why lots of other people look at CoCs as nothing but political correctness bullshit

I think you guys are grossly misreading this. While the wording of that section may need some work, none of it is triggered unless you're offering Mongo as a direct service. None of it is triggered if Mongo is used as a backend. None of it is triggered if you're just using Mongo to provide some other service, but not Mongo itself. Even if it is triggered, it's pretty clear their intention is to by pass someone saying "Well, I'm selling MongoDB as "SuperMega Cloud WebScale Service. But, this pesky license requires me to give back.. hmm... Okay, I just have to provide some token thing but definitely not the bits required to actually replicate the service and certainly not my improvements to Mongo."

Whether that is a good idea or not is a separate question, however their intent is pretty clear. In short, they're tired of the AWSes of the world snatching some open source thing, slapping a fancy label on it and selling the service for gobs of money while giving nothing at all back to those who created the software that allows them to exist.

That too could be debated as a good idea or not. I'm sure the MIT/BSD folks would say that's perfectly fine. Not everyone likes to get used like that and may see it as being screwed over.

Er, this is nothing like what Oracle has/is done. This is purely a strike against AWS and others who snatch open source systems, apply a veneer of closed source stuff and try and sell it as a service, usually while attempting to dissuade anyone from running it themselves and just "move to the cloud".

If one is an AWS, then one would be prohibited from snatching Mongo (or other covered things), renaming it and selling it as a service. If one is just using Mongo for whatever and not selling it as a direct service, nothing changes. Their FAQ is pretty clear about all this and makes their intent crystal clear.

I'd wager the objection stems from "extract" almost always being used in a negative way. While you correct in your analysis, some people tend to use "extract" in much the same way that others would say that "profit is theft"

No, it wouldn't be possible. Is it possible that some environments are not overly welcoming? Sure, but that's life. The reality is that out of *all* the women I've known in my entire life probably no more than 15% (That's being wildly generous) are even remotely interested in this field. If there was this vast untapped pool of women who want to be in the technical fields but are simply kept out by the evil misogyny, why is it that the idea of even finding a proverbial "geek girl" is thought super hard to the point of cliche? If this pool existed, wouldn't it be logical to think that finding such people wouldn't be such a challenge as it is, even if they weren't actively working in the field?

Are there such people? Yes, absolutely. I do know some. Yet, even in the circles I run in which tend to run heavy with tech and gaming and related people, it is already rare. How much more so in the general population then?

It'd be lovely if it wasn't this way. It'd be great. It'd be awesome. I wish it weren't this way. Yet, it is. I won't postulate on why it is this way. I just know that this is the observation I and all I've talked to directly and indirectly have had.

Report at once to the re-orientation camp for immediate corrective right-think. Heathen.

(For those who have had their sense of humor purged at a previous camp, this was a joke. It is not meant to be taken seriously. See Right-Think Publication 1784357 for more information.)

A female Linus would be *able* to laugh at this. A female Linus would be held up as being direct, strong, and so on for doing the exact same things.

Part of me can't help but think that all this has done is hand certain types of people a thermonuclear bomb any time they want to use it. As I said in the previous thread on this, if anyone thinks that people of *NON-PROTECTED CLASS* won't be scared of criticizing any member of *PROTECTED CLASS* they haven't been paying attention. This will be even truer if someone who is a known hard-core SJW type is involved. Criticizing them would be taking your career in your hands, something to be avoided

I believe it is the latter. While I fully admit to not having hard evidence either way in front of me, I am also sure that if The New Yorker had such they would have most definitely included it in an article whose stated purpose was covering exactly that. They didn't, thus it isn't overly unreasonable to logically assume such doesn't exist. Given the mailing lists are all public, this is an assumption that could be verified.

Does anyone know of any case of any time that anyone was 'beat down' on the mailing lists for being female or some other protected class? Is there any evidence of that happening for that reason in particular?

Agreed 100%

That seems logical by in large. I think the difference is limited to my thought would be write a more logical and less ambiguous one from the start vice adopting one that is deeply flawed and modifying it. I can see the reasoning there, as you cay, it makes it possible to say that "We tried your way". Of course, I suspect the most ardent supporters will decry all changes. One can only go so far to appease though

While I generally agree with your reasoning, I think it needs pointing out that were it just the CoC it would be one thing. It's the totality of the CoC, PMM and other things which sets a pattern that is worth examining and sheds light onto other areas. I'm not entirely sure one can be completely isolated from the other in this instance, even if the idea is sound in the general case.

I would rather write a CoC that needs less fixing in the first place than adopt one that appears deeply flawed, rife with fairly open definitions to the point of meaning anything. While it may not have been intentional, I do wonder if such ambiguity was intentional.

Do you think the CoC and PMM, both written by the same person and which appear to contain the same values, aren't linked in values and purpose? We're not really talking about a case where a person wrote some random article with questionable conclusions and then went on to write something else. We're talking about a person who has taken a particular political position and actively works to push it forward using these tools and the behaviors they tend to engender. Would you say this is mistaken?

You're correct, the CoC doesn't absolutely require adopting the PMM. However, it would be very hard to ignore the fact that both were written by the same person with the same overall agenda in mind and what the previous person said is 100% correct, this is a political agenda and has nothing to do with technology and only relates to being respectful to people insofar as the ways in which that advances the political agenda in question.

The previous "code" Linux had was fine. If a change was needed, an amendment of "Also, don't be a dick" would have worked. However, they have ripped out a code which specifically called for quality and good engineering above all and replaced it with one written by someone who is, by their own words a "Notorious Social Justice Warrior". I don't know the person, I could be misinterpreting their words and maybe it is tongue-in-cheek. I tend to doubt it.