> No, he means the raw unedited videos, like the ones on channel he linked.
Is it though? Things don't magically disappear from raw footage. Either you edit it out or not show inconvenient footage.
I mean, all this gaslighting requires you in the very least to accuse other footage from the same events and involving the same people of being fabricated.
> It's like saying the least toxic venom on the planet is the pinnacle of non-toxicity... I mean it's still venom.
If all you see is toxicity, wherever you look around, then perhaps that warrants some introspection and a review of your personal definition of toxicity. Odds are you're picking way too many false positives.
> If anything, the GP feels unpleasant for trying to present its parent comment in the worst possible light, in an overly snarky tone.
Pointing factually and patently wrong assertions is not a personal attack nor being toxic.
A comment or article does not have first-move advantage for making false claims free from negative opinions or corrections. If you make a blatantly false claim and you're called on it then that's the Hallmark of a healthy community having healthy discussions.
> The main thing I've noticed on HN is that having a contrarian mindset is rewarded, even in situations where it doesn't add to the conversation.
Is it really being contrarian, or supporting multiple views in intellectually stimulating discussions?
A few days ago there was a discussion on CORS where some people defended the thesis it made sites less secure, and others stepped in and defended that CORS in fact improved security. Both sides posted their rationales. Arguably neither position was right or wrong. It just depends on perspective.
A glass can be half full and half empty at the same time.
Is anyone being contrarian to point out either interpretation?
> Well first, you took a well-meaning article discussing how HN can be toxic.
You can look at the article as an attack on a forum's reputation, and consequently on their users, by fabricating baseless blanket accusations of being a toxic community, when in truth at most it just shows people disagreeing or pointing out misconceptions and factual errors.
Would we be toxic if a random troll started insisting that the sky was green and the community posted that the troll was wrong and the sky was in fact blue?
> It's a person nonchalantly talking about killing homeless people as a viable solution to homelessness.
Do you have a link or not? You're running in circles about he-said-she-said, but the only concrete info you shown so far boils down to your own personal extraordinary words you're trying to pin on some random person.
I mean, how can anyone tell whether you're making everything up or not?
There's a far more charitable interpretation (and explanation) of this: broadness.
People who know too little don't know how to get to the happy path, let alone stay in there.
People who know too much know extensively where the happy path lies, it's neighborhood, how to go off-road out of the happy path and the dangers that lie therein.
People in the middle know how to get to the happy path and remain there, and know that steering away from the happy path leads to trouble and ambiguity. As they mastered the happy path then they feel unlimited confidence and arrogance.
> Literal example. They weren't saying "we should kill homeless people", but (...)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and given that it only took a reply to water down the initial bombastic claim, unless you support your claims with concrete proof I'll have to write off your claim as hyperbolic misrepresentations.
> Do you agree that the question “who cares what X says?”
Perhaps I've become desensitized, but "toxic" is not a synonym for "not supportive". Being dismissive of something or someone, or not agreeing with someone for that matter, does not mean a community or person is toxic. It just means you don't agree or support someone or something, and instead you have different opinions and support different positions.
> He did more than that, as noted in the comment you replied to.
He really didn't. It matters nothing if you feel a commit breaks your code because you not only ignored the author but also failed to perform any sort of due diligence regarding what dependencies you ingest.
I mean, it was a major version bump. People blindly upgrade stuff without any regard about what goes in, and somehow that makes the guy who volunteered his work on a side project a villain?
There are a lot of red flags in this story, but the author of the colors flag ain't one of it.
>>I think you’re being far too kind in your interpretation. If one wishes to stop maintaining, all you must do is nothing.
This sounds like a gross misrepresentation of what happened.
It has been reported that the author of the colors and faker packages announced last year that he was no longer willing to do free work for Fortune500 companies.
He also proceeded to state quite publicly that either companies paid him for his work, or they should fork the project and maintain it themselves instead of taking advantage of everyone else's work.
After a year has passed, the author proceeded to release a couple of major versions that had a more artistic feel.
These packages are his circus, and his clowns run the act he chooses.
If anything, this update showcases the completely abhorrent security culture in place in these mega-companies, which literally ingest into their product line anything that they can find on GitHub without a shred of due diligence.
> EU got to the brink of collapse with 1 million Syrian refugees (...)
That's quite the extraordinary claim. Can you offer any extraordinary evidence that supports your claim? Because from what I've gathered, it barely holds any bearing with reality.
Is it though? Things don't magically disappear from raw footage. Either you edit it out or not show inconvenient footage.
I mean, all this gaslighting requires you in the very least to accuse other footage from the same events and involving the same people of being fabricated.