yttrium

Utilities should at minimum not have a profit motive involved, but the fact that we've been so happy to deliver vast profits to shareholders instead of proofing our grid has been a real tragedy.

Reducing the (frankly near-miraculous) host of effects that GLP-1 medications induce in the human body to "make you eat less" is grounds for instant mistrust. There is so, so, so much more that goes into them than just reducing appetite (whether it's helping your brain modulate dopamine signals, smoothing out glycemic control, reducing inflammation more generally, the list goes on). I think the pharmaceutical industry is as guilty of time and money wasting as anyone, but billions in R&D did actually yield quite a coup this time!

It did play against a male player, as outlined in the article:

> Sony AI autonomous robot Ace returns a shot back against its human opponent, table tennis player Yamato Kawamata, during a match in December 2025, as seen in this photograph released on April 22, 2026.

Which trackball do you use?

Maybe I'm not surprised by this because I work in higher ed, but that ratio of administrative staff vs faculty is not really anything to write home about. I work at a top 10 business school, and our staff/teaching ratio is about 5/1, and at schools like HBS or INSEAD in France, the ratio skews quite a bit higher.

That's the thing though, you're calling someone being forced out because they hold a bigoted position 'lynching'. You're equivocating what has historically been an act of racially provoked murder with the removal of a bigot - there's no justice to be found there.

Political opponents ought to (and are, in most cases) barred from effectively participating in the political process when they hold oppressive and bigoted view points.

Of course not, because that's grossly impractical. There are easy ways of dealing with that - You can first work with the assumption that most people are fundamentally good human beings who don't carry hatred or bigotry around in their heart. This is not too much of a stretch. Additionally, you can try and have conversations with those who are wrong in their beliefs. This is not always successful, but it's a reasonable thing to do.

The thing is, to a large degree society and economy do already do this. If you're outed as a sexist, or a racist, you lose your job. We mostly operate under the assumption that people are not those things. We're just currently in the phase where we're defining additional boundaries to what is and is not acceptable in the workplace.

After all, everyone who starts a development job nowadays does several things that are akin to what you're describing: You voluntarily confirm that you will not harass or discriminate, and when you break those rules you get kicked out.

There is no room for hate speech and bigotry in tech. They cause harm now, and promote harm in the future. You're using censorship as an attempt to wring a personal grievance on the behalf of people who would hide behind their hate speech as ideological differences and not what it really is: the verbal expression of actions they're already taking.

Bigots, sexists, racists, and hate groups of all stripes use free speech and the idea of censorship as a way to distract from the fact that they're putting into action what they pretend to only debate.

Not at all - I don't read Orson Scott Card anymore, because he's a bigot. That is a decision that doesn't touch upon whether or not his books are any good. When it comes to code, there's no piece of code or software product that can't be replaced by someone who behaves morally.

Ultimately, you can't, and shouldn't decouple someone's work from the person themselves. We ought to feel ashamed when we support someone who's beliefs and actions are reprehensible.

Opposing gay marriage causes harm because it's active oppression, and because it's a argumentative shield for people who have direct opposition to gay people themselves. There are no strong arguments against gay marriage beyond bigotry.

You don't have to pretend that you're not a bigot - opposition to gay marriage is bigotry.

You're right - you can't ensure that they won't use your work for bad, that's true. You can try to lessen the impact by making sure they're not part of your organization or community. Excluding them does help me, because I don't have to put up with someone who is actively trying to make my life worse.

I think if you manage an open source project you should feel comfortable taking a stand on contributors who have/advocate for actively discriminatory positions. Just because you organize a community project that may be used by people you fundamentally disagree with doesn't mean you have to check your sense of morality at the door.

If someone submitted a PR to my project who held openly racist positions, I would deny the PR. No amount of genius or technical merit makes up for that.

One could come up with a hypothetical of an open source project that is important enough to require any help it can get, and also somehow obscure enough that only a handful of developers are working on it. Nonetheless, I don't really think most open source projects (or even for-profit projects) fall into that category. At the point where work becomes so important that you need to compromise other parts of your character in order to finish it there are probably bigger things to worry about.

Reform is not the intent, although it is the criteria for re-inclusion. The intent is to create a community that respects all of it's members rights. Excluding the co-worker helps me because I don't have to worry about whether the fruits of my labor are going to a effort that will cause me harm either in the present or in the future.

Social interaction and software development go hand in hand - The idea that someone with a fundamentally hostile viewpoint is needed to create something of value for both of us is not applicable. There are many software developers who don't wish harm upon others, and they will be more willing to work with you.

The best outcome in this situation is not the product that gets created. The best outcome is an environment in which members of the community don't feel like their basic rights are in question.

Sure - but this has long surpassed 'ideas and opinions'. Oppression of gay people, minorities, and other marginalized groups is not founded in 'opinion' - it's a fact and representation of life. Gay people are currently in a situation where someone is trying to actively oppress them. When you donate to anti-gay causes, you're directly enabling harm.

This doesn't have anything to do with censorship - it has to do with letting people know that taking an active participatory position in oppression is not acceptable.