This might be a British humoUr thing - as a local it read very much as a self-deprecating jab at our own English-centric travelling. Taken literally obviously it would be offensive, but it's not meant that way. I note that the author lives in Edinburgh, a place which has a reputation for quite dry, understated and self-deprecating style to start with - understandably, as the only way to stand the hordes clogging the Mile and other picturesque spots.
If anyone submitted such a PR to one of my projects and could explain compelling benefits for why doing so would be a general improvement, even considering trade-offs of increased complexity/maintainability, etc., then I'd be delighted they'd cared enough to improve my software.
How is the drive-by statement of a random GH account with 9 followers representative of any community. What's the point you're trying to make? That there's people with shitty behavior in the Rust community? No surprise here, there are. That there's trolls out there that just do this for fun? It's the internet! I hope that doesn't surprise anyone by now.
It's why we see so many infants getting caught for DUIs. Seriously? You seem to be implying that there's no justification/efficacy for any law/ban prohibiting children from engaging in adult activities. That's... something.
I was curious about Shakti after reading this and the comments, so followed the link to shakti.com on Wikipedia. It seems it now redirects to the k.nyc domain, which displays a single letter 'k'.
I wondered if I was missing something, so looked at the source, to find the following:
<div style='font-family:monospace'>k
Nothing but that. Which is, surely, the HTML equivalent of the Whitney C style: relying on the compiler/interpreter to add anything implicit, and shaving off every element that isn't required, such as a closing tag (which, yes, only matters if you're going to want something else afterwards, I guess...). Bravo.
For me the objections in the UK is not really about the principle (although there are always going to be some privacy/liberty/etc. concerns in that sense), but about the likely implementation.
If we could be assured that whatever was put in place was genuinely privacy/security focused, had open and transparent governance, and wasn't susceptible to capture by corporations/other powerful actors, I suspect many people wouldn't be too bothered. But that's not really the offer, it never is with public IT infrastructure in the UK. The likelihood is that it would be farmed out to one more private corporations to build and maintain, generally for a lowest bid, and overseen by people without sufficient expertise to avert many/any of the potential harms from a poor implementation.
There are good ways to do things like this: public ownership, open governance, security/privacy baked in, all based on a reflective national conversation about trade-offs and the valid fears that many have. What people don't trust is not really the concept of ID cards, it is instead the track record of this and previous governments with both IT and privacy impacting legislation, and even more so the potential inclinations of future governments, particularly at a time when far-right parties are floating ideas like mass deportation of people legally entitled to be here.
Digital ID and a free society are not inherently opposed, but there is no sign that this or other administrations are sufficiently interested in, or aware of, the complexities involved to produce anything other than a semi-permanent disaster.
An anomaly for sure, and I think as much as anything else one caused by the fact that Covid meant that government couldn't do business as usual. It wasn't procured and developed in the usual way, it didn't have the usual political pressures and fights from all sides. Yes, it's an example of what could be done if government was insulated from the usual environment!
It's not really about whether it aligns or not, it's more about whether it's true. What he says about London isn't true, but it is divisive and fearmongering.
Yup, and just to add, for those not in the UK, or particularly connected to London, etc. - this take is utter garbage. The UK certainly has a variety of challenges, but they are not what the far right (and that's what the people he's talking about absolutely are) make them out to be. London is not what it's painted to be by external rabble-rousers and populists, and this mania/delusion that's being pushed (sometimes by the very wealthy who are often much closer to the problem than immigrants are) is a significant problem.
DHH is (or should be) pretty close to a toxic brand right now, and for someone who published various edicts on "don't talk about politics at work", it would be lovely if he followed his own advice a little more.
So are you also going to list the fact that 40% of people who got arrested in 2024 anti-immigrant riots also had convictions for domestic and sexual violence
Being arrested for ‘wrong think’ is often a case of being arrested for inciting violence or racial hatred
There are more white grooming gangs than Pakistani ones
etc… etc…
DHH’s post just picked the stories that suited his bias
Absolutely, the technique of "you won't debate me so I must be right" has somehow risen from the playground to mainstream politics, but it's arrant nonsense. Not every idea is worthy of rational and moral consideration, and sometimes it is not weakness to reject even a proposition, simply humanity and a recognition of the underlying motive, which is not always to seek enlightenment, but sometimes to undermine the very idea of enlightenment.
> Not every idea is worthy of rational and moral consideration
Sure they are. If you can't justify your beliefs (or rejection of other beliefs) rationally from some set of principles or axoims, you can't claim that they're valid or that anyone else should abide by (or even respect) them.
Maybe the premises are something that you or others disagree with (e.g. to take one that we probably both disagree with: human value is predicated on intelligence), but if you can't argue from some set of premises, your beliefs are meaningless and invalid (and, almost always, inconsistent and hypocritical).
> sometimes it is not weakness to reject even a proposition, simply humanity and a recognition of the underlying motive
Can you read minds to discern motives? If not, then this is a false assertion.
Indeed, and "what Mosley believed" was pretty well known at the time given his fascist activity over the preceding thirty years. Mosley was not likely to change his mind, and while there may well sometimes be joy and enlightenment in the practice of debate and rhetoric, you don't have to do it with a fascist. Bertrand Russell had nothing to prove and was perfectly reasonable in saying, effectively, that they were never going to agree and there's no point in wasting more paper in proving that.
reply