urbanautomaton

Call me naive, but when harrassment this egregious is exposed at a well-known tech company, I don't feel the need to stroke my chin and wonder if there's a media conspiracy to make it appear worse than it is. I don't even know how this could be made to look worse than it is. What possible spin could a publisher put on this that is not already present in the allegation and evidence?

I have no time for someone who claims to be quoting "the legal documents" when he is in fact parroting one side's case in a domestic violence dispute to which he is not a party. Thanks for clarifying what you are, though; that's useful, albeit hardly surprising.

> If she doesn't like it, she can go back to actually working for a living, like the rest of us.

The rest of us turn up for 8 hours on a good day, turn in shitty code on our horrifically-factored, monolithic Rails app that some other poor shlub will have to maintain, break off at 2pm on a Friday for craft beer and convince ourselves we're changing the goddamn world with our latest social widget.

"Working for a living, like the rest of us"? Don't make me laugh.

The most half-assed Ruby dev, and oh my goodness there's some competition for that title, would easily be earning an integer multiple of what Ashe gets on gittip. You quite clearly know absolutely zilch about how much work Ashe does, and you so very obviously have no idea whatsoever how to value it, so how about you quieten down and go take a look at yourself, eh?

And as a guy not on the margins, who has been repeatedly educated and informed by these "spoiled princesses", I can't say I agree with him either. I find their work incredibly valuable, so I'd be interested to hear why joaren believes they're setting back their own cause.

Well, maybe "interested" is overstating it a bit. "Morbidly curious"?

I would be ecstatic if the businesses I chose to deal with had such principles, yes, and would gladly join their boycott. We are all involved in the civil rights "debate", whether we like it or not.

Brendan Eich chose to make his personal belief public by paying for it to be written into law, and his customers, who include publishers on his platform, are absolutely free to hold him accountable for that.

What his employers choose to do in response to that public knowledge and action is up to them, within the limits of employment law. It is my understanding that homophobes are not a protected class under said law, and long may that continue.

Any further inferences you draw from my posts are unwarranted, although I'll tell you for free that any company that asks potential employees what their sexual orientation is can get stuffed as far as I'm concerned.

Weighed in the balance:

1. the right of gay people to get married

2. our personal right to pay money to bigots using specific money-transfer services

I'll be honest, I keep re-rolling, and it keeps coming up 1. What am I doing wrong?

Well, let me help you out. Brendan Eich choosing to pay actual money (taking a direct action) to oppose the existence of gay marriage (alienating a large community) is what I'm referring to.

> That's a very very very VERY unprofessional stance.

I do not recognise this definition of professionalism, and am happy to be called unprofessional if it is the accepted one.

Mozilla is an organisation that is dependent on community goodwill and support, and if the person they choose as a figurehead is one who has taken direct action to alienate a large segment of that community, then it seems to me entirely proper for that community to react as they see fit.

I totally agree. And this is before we even consider what ubiquitous autoloading encourages us to do to our code in terms of coupling. Our classes are available everywhere, so the tendency to create many hard dependencies on a wide range of classes is very strong. Want to run a SQL query right in a view? Nothing stopping you. Want to instantiate a controller in a model so you can get at the path helpers? I will hunt you-- er, sorry, I mean, "nothing stopping you" (except your pride).

Like you, I find it very hard to rubbish the auto-reloading, but even this encourages bad habits, I think. Rather than write tests for the behaviour we just implemented, or the bug we just fixed, we hit F5. Didn't work? Change something, hit F5. This at least isn't really Rails' fault; it's our job as programmers to do the professional thing. But it does act as something of a siren call to the rocks of cowboy programming. And like you say, there are other, more insidious issues with divergent dev/production environments.

Yep - if you pass a path the behaviour is as normal, but it's still overloaded to support the path inference behaviour. I guess it's not really monkeypatching though as `Module` itself is not modified, and you have to deliberately choose to use `ActiveSupport::Autoload`, so I reluctantly retract my parenthetical snark. :-)

Rails does overload Ruby's autoload (naturally - no core functionality can remain un-monkeypatched. ;-)), but not for the on-demand autoloading the article describes, which is what most users contend with most frequently, and was what I most wanted to demystify. Thanks for the clarification though - I'll try to make the distinction clearer.

Just to make sure we're on the same page: I'm talking about the externality of global warming, which at present is completely absent from the oil pricing system.

As a result, I'm not sure it's as simple as a straightforward efficiency calculation, because under a system where the consumer bears the currently externalised costs of burning fossil fuels, both the cost of flaring would go up, and the oil value captured by the drilling company would go down. I have no idea what a sane level for a carbon tax would be, and I'm certainly not economist enough to predict the ramifications for global fuels pricing; like I say, it may well work out that flaring remains cost-effective. But the costs of an action should be borne by the party that benefits, otherwise the incentives are, as I say, totally screwed.