I'm glad, and I shouldn't try to pigeonhole you here either, I just think these types of conversations lose specificity quickly.
Person A: I'm doing <this thing> to support <cause>
Person B: You shouldn't do <that thing>
Person A (or more often, C): Inaction is equal to support / silence is violence
I think there is almost always more than one possible action, even in support of <cause>. Also, some well intentioned actions can hurt a cause, so inaction is obviously preferable. Or, there may be a third outcome that I like better than <cause> or <not cause>.
Let me get specific, to avoid my own criticism.
I don't know if what the original commenter is doing is worth the effort, in terms of supporting Ukraine in this conflict. There's obviously a cost, in terms of dev time and false positives (showing the message to an unintended audience). I do think it is usually annoying, distracting, and unnecessarily polarizing to add politics to technical projects, so I would lean against doing this, even if I agree with the politics. Good technical work is hard enough on its own.
I'm not terribly offended by this action, and I wouldn't criticize it on its own; but I definitely think that "inaction supports the Russian invasion" is out of line here.
No, it isn't. The comment we're replying to here is about someone adding a message to their code repo that's shown to Russian viewers. Are you saying that if people don't do this, they support the Russian invasion? It seems pretty obvious when you get specific. It's simpleminded to divide people into two groups and say that anyone who doesn't agree with a _particular action_ is the enemy.
> Inaction is equal to support of the Russian invasion
No, no it isn't, in this or in other situations. More than two choices _usually_ exist. Statements like this present a false dichotomy in an attempt to coerce people to support a preferred position or interpretation.
Understand things like, "what is in shampoo", to take an example from the article? I like to understand things too, but there there's plenty of things to learn, and I think one can benefit from being choosy.
I wish America had more bikeable cities and better public transport too, but I don't see what that has to do with the linked article. I would also really like a dumbcar.
> The idea that someone can allocate several hours during their busy day for a live interview but somehow can’t find several hours during the week for a take-home doesn’t even make logical sense.
I personally like take-home problems. It's hard for an employer to time-box them without resorting to basically leetcode though. I know that, as a student, I definitely spent many hours on them.
It's just as easy to argue that leetcode-style interviews are because companies are afraid of being discriminatory in hiring. If you aren't allowed to consider culture fit (because it's discriminatory) or education (because it's discriminatory) or give take home work (because it's discriminatory against people with time constraints) or trust your feelings in a qualitative interview (because they're discriminatory), what can you do? Solving real engineering problems takes too long for an interview, and full-day interviews are also discriminatory against people with time constraints. You can candidates give some automated algorithms problem solving test- that's what you can do.
Several people mention DuckDuckGo in that Twitter thread. I use DuckDuckGo for my main search engine, and it's not obviously any better than Google regarding SEO spam.
Eh... regardless of how it's generally used, I think "leech" implies a parasite that is actively harming a host. Generally users who don't contribute aren't directly _benefitting_ the author, but they generally aren't harming the author either.
Open source projects seem happy to yank the carpet from under their users, depending on what you mean. In the Python world, I'd put Python 3 and pip 21 in that category.