I think he should have given you credit, you were clearly first and he responded to your tweet so he must have seen it! But he might have just forgotten he had the conversation with you about this, while still being more likely to "rediscover" the term since he had heard it before. Maybe a bit aggressive to not reach out to him privately first but in any case pretty cool that you actually invented a term that is now quite likely to be popular :)
I stopped reading at the point he described Basecamp as having imploded.
Can we please at least try to be a little more objective in how we use language?
You may agree or disagree with what Basecamp, now 37signals, did but the company did not “implode”.
Many of their employees - one third - did disagree with what they did and chose to leave.
Was their leaving a protest? Well, maybe. But IIRC they were offered very generous severance terms, which would have made that choice much easier to make and so perhaps robs it of some of its value as a protest.
And what about the company? Well, as far as I can tell, they seem to be doing fine. They’re offering junior devs, was it 125k or 150k US fully remote? Somewhere in that ballpark anyway. And just about anywhere within a certain range of time zones. That’s not a sign of a company that’s struggling.
I have read DHH’s blog post about London, and I am a Brit, so think I can offer a somewhat qualified point of view here. DHH is correct about the demographic changes in London over the past decades, but he’s absolutely wrong to cast Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) as some kind of good faith activist standing up for the rights of ordinary British folks. The guy is a criminal and a low-life grifter. I can’t even really call him a fascist because I’m not convinced he really believes a word he’s saying. So I’ll stick with con-artist.
Back to the post: the most charitable interpretation I can put on it is that DHH simply hasn’t done his homework on Robinson. Is that an accurate characterisation? I honestly don’t know.
And I don't even know much of these stuff is related to Ruby Central Is Not Behaving in Good Faith. Not a good sign for an article if it's for showing evidence... (maybe it's not
I wish I can see more summary, state facts mostly (with sources even they might not be reliable but better than just guessing without source)
It isn't being used as a pejorative. But an adult person shouldn't write like an emotionally unstable teenager if they want to be taken seriously. Teenage girls have a particularly clichéd way of writing and communicating. That's it. Being emotionally unstable isn't a pejorative either; it's part of growing up. It's called adolescence, when the brain is in a particularly turbulent and dynamic part of development.
I can't remember exactly what the now flagged comment said, but there is something odd and affected about adopting the slang/jargon of people a generation younger than you.
If these forces are so powerful, why don’t both sides use them and cancel each other out? It seems like people only invoke these explanations when their side loses, when they win it’s because the voters accepted true and good arguments.
It may seem that, but I invoke it bc it aligns with adversarial desires of hostile states (Iran, China, Russian). I assume some proportion of fake humans are part of any system sowing cultural discord, left or right.
The international consensus is that trump sows international discord with USA's allies. I agree. My analysis has nothing to do with right vs left or sides here
A couple of other possible explanations: 1) People voted who don't normally vote, the main reason Trump has often overperformed polls. 2) Pollsters wanted to avoid a preference cascade.
I think 1 is the most likely reason. It's important to remember Romania is much poorer and more corrupt than the typical Western European country which means the established political parties are both less popular and more vulnerable to disruption by (in this case somewhat unhinged) outsiders.
He seems like a bad guy. If you thought he would manage to kill democracy you're wrong. Especially with the EU support for civil society and the possibility of sanctions if he did something really undemocratic, like demanding a rerun of an election he lost for example.
Orban has been doing his "illiberal democracy" (i.e. not a democracy) thing for 15+ years now. The EU is about as laughably powerless to stop him as I am to stop a punch by Floyd Mayweather. So it's kinda funny you say that.
He does some bad things but he would not get away with anything as extreme overturning an election based on a pretext like this, nor with widespread voter fraud. Eventually he will lose an election, just like Law and Justice in Poland. Judging by the polling trends that could be as soon as 2026:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_H...
While I think it would be suboptimal you could imagine "rerun the elections if the winner breaks campaign finance law or gets support from abroad" as an established norm in western democracies, but that's not the world we live in and the EU would not accept these shenanigans from a populist right wing government.
That’s different, the austrian example was about actual mistakes in the way votes were counted, cast, who were allowed to vote etc. Not the same as «we blame foreign bots» and someone may have broken campaign finance laws.
Maybe they should. You can cheat all you want but as long as you win, you win. What’s the point of campaign finance laws if they can be broken with no meaningful consequence? The candidate’s campaign gets a “fine” that they pay out of campaign money anyway. But they still can win.
This from a personal view is one of the main current issues with America.
The rules often appear to exist to punish the just and law abiding, while the unscrupulous simply ignore the laws, win their current sportball match, and then rewrite the laws afterward to legitimize whatever the results were. Really common theme with corporate America.
A lot of campaign finance laws are almost flagrantly ignored, or superficially followed, with a light slap and a candy treat afterward. Corporate laws are almost amazing when there's a fine that "actually" matters, and not just a round-off error "cost-of-doing-business." Company makes $10^11 - $10^9 revenue per year, gets a $10^7 - $10^6 fine a decade later? Right, that was like 100th to a 1000th of a single year revenue fine.
Look, that’s a fine point for corporate laws. They should be rigorously enforced.
But election laws are completely different. Enforcement of election laws inherently allows unelected lawyers and judges to second guess voters. It puts the justice system above the electoral system, which is corrosive to democracy. What are the checks and balances on the people enforcing those elections laws?
It happens all the time. The US supreme court stopped a recount of the elections in Florida in 2000. In Berlin, the 2021 state elections went so wrong that they had to be repeated two years later. And so on.
> Enforcement of election laws inherently allows unelected lawyers and judges to second guess voters.
Um, legal enforcement of almost any standard allows unelected lawyers and judges to second-guess "the popular will" — for example, in buying goods and services, many people vote with their dollars for the cheapest option as opposed to quality (as airlines have learned). Without enforcement, this "revealed preference" can drive a cost-cutting race to the bottom on the part of producers — adverse impacts on society be damned (e.g., pollution and other negative externalities).
And voters, in particular, can be subject to buyer's remorse: see, e.g., the recent polling about the increase in the number of Brits who voted for Brexit and now regret it. [0]
No, they shouldn’t. Holding people liable for finance law violations can still provide signals to the public, which may affect their voting. But you can’t allow unelected criminal justice officials to override elections. That’s a path straight to hell, as has been proven time and again in Asian countries that do that.
How would you suggest they be held to account here?
Keep in mind that their ill-gotten gains include votes, and that a criminal's ill-gotten gains of a crime must be disgorged to hold the criminal to account.
Voters can take it into account. But you can’t elevate legal technicalities above democracy. People will not trust the people administering the election laws over the people they voted for.
It’s a “who watches the watchers” problem. Many countries have tried to impose the legal system on elections and it invariably results in destruction of trust in both elections and the justice system.
Developed countries have laws which oftentimes are even applied, like exactly in this case. Some HN audience has obviously a very naive understanding of what a "law" is and that "disrespecting the law" can have consequences.
I heard that too and am very excited for this! When I build my new machine with a new rdna4 machine, this'll be the distro/de I'll use at first bootup.
Same thing happened to me, I kept contacting him every six months or so for a couple of years and did not get a response for years after an advertised feature of the paid subcription did not work for me.. I asked for a fix or a refund, never got either. Kind of annoying to see him spend a lot of time on activism while paying for a service I never received and could not get a refund for
