Do hippies frighten you because they represent a more egalitarian and prosperous ideology than your narrow minded brain can conceive of?

Do communists make you quake in your boots because you don't believe you could get on in a society where you might not be able to solve all of your problems with money? indeed, imagine if you might have to rely upon people liking you; I also fear for your ability to get on.

Is it the "drug fueled" portion, because you perhaps feel some right to tell other consenting adults (whom probably know much better about their bodies and their own lives than you do about yours) what to do on their spare time?

Or are you waking up to the fact that we, as a society, are becoming more secular[0], and thus you see the advance of atheism as an attack against the institution of your personal sky daddy?

And these are all reasonable things to think of you, since you only wave vaguely at a collection of adjectives while expressing some nebulous form of disdain. Perhaps either clarify the nature of your disagreement, or continue to persist in the shadow of intellectual doubt and fear you appear to be laboring under... which is a disease very common to people who appear to believe as you do.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20240123000719/https://www.nytim...

Also, why should it matter to me if they're doing it because they think they're commanded to by some omnipotent figure? I regularly disregard the rantings of schizophrenics, why should I buy into one delusion and not another? Why should I respect Christian beliefs more than other delusions?

That's not what Elm does. They lock down the compiler so only Elm devs can modify internals, which would be equivalent to Linus trying to prevent people from modifying the kernel.

They really don't like people forking their repo, which would be equivalent to Linus getting mad at people making derivative kernels (because it would "split the community.")

It's not just a matter of saying "no," it's trying to control what devs do to an UNREASONABLE degree.

Obviously Elm is his passion project, that's fine. But nobody who locks down their compiler on a supposedly "open source" project can actually seriously expect others to engage with that in good faith.

Furthermore, the absolute state of just trying to modify Elm to be more fit for purpose is horrendous. Every time I see a parallel implementation or a fork, the author has to bend over backward with platitudes to placate the Elm masses and ensure them that this project isn't trying to "split the community," which is a nonsense idea to start with imo.

It feels cultish, on top of a project that is actively hostile to people who want to use it any way other than how the BDFL has mandated its usage. If you want to say the problem is with the users, that's fine, but that's exactly the attitude keeping me from ever engaging. I personally think the problem is with the people who want such fine control over their technology and community, as opposed to understanding that they can really only shepherd their implementation. That's about as far as their reach rightfully extends.

EDIT: also, the fact that they aggressively lock down their compiler and have such hostility to anyone working in parallel is imo the definition of "holding it back"

I remember when the Elm team first decided to lock down the Elm compiler, so that only the team in charge had special privileged access to modify it. I thought, "wow, this looks like a bunch of people who don't want to collaborate, who want to take their ball and tell others how to play with it, really putting the 'dictator' in BDFL." and you know what? that's fine. I don't harbor anything against them as people. But that left a permanently bad taste in my mouth and I'm unlikely to ever trust that group or a project they're managing.

Also I have body image issues and do not enjoy working out around other people.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37356040

Points: 6

# Comments: 13

I am not saying crypto should be illegal. I am saying it's a stupid idea for a currency and it's stupid for people to trust it.

If people want to go gamble tons of money, then that's fine, but it is not an investment. No real value is being produced. It is a zero-sum gambling ring that shifts money from one pocket to anoth er. It is musical chairs with bearer bonds.

It enshrines institutional power via truly braindead deflationary policies.

Unless you're an early mover, or pump a ton of money into it later, you essentially have no capability of engaging in the space as anything more than a victim.

Just because you like something doesn't make it useful.

I'm sincerely asking. That appears to me the endpoint of the argument you make here. I might be wrong in my interpretation or conclusion, so please do correct any inaccuracies or leaps you find in my post.

I am not a fan of cryptocurrency, because I think it is stupid. But I am a fan of (actually) anonymous and privacy preserving currencies. So I can continue to not harm or victimize others, but acquire the molecules that make me the most functional.

This is certainly an ideal that libertarians hold, though I do not claim myself or my views as being particularly libertarian.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36352224

Points: 20

# Comments: 10