1/2? No I’m confused with all the “non binary” and different pro nouns and such we have to use now. It’s like 1/7, 1/9, 1/8, 2/5 etc. It’s not a clear cut 1/2 anymore.
The percentage of people requiring a non-(s)he pronoun is small enough it shouldn't negatively affect your life. For those that do, just train yourself.
In a similar vein, it took me a few weeks a few weeks to remember to call an, previously female, employee "he" once they transitioned. It was important to them as a person, so I made it important to me as their employer.
How is this any different to remembering not to use a newly married person's maiden name? Do you complain about being confused with all the "non-original" surnames you need to remember after a wedding?
He made a point of specifically “fixing” his pronoun usage and then uses a gender-neutral pronoun when a non-neutral one could be used. What’s the point?
Is it to prevent future thoughtcrime in case the person in question decides to use another pronoun again?
It was a simple mistake, actually. If I had to do it again, I should have used "she" at the beginning of the sentence and "he" at the end to emphisise the transition.
I wouldn't say I fixed my pronoun use. I used the term that properly identified the person I was speaking about.
Thoughtcrime is something to me that has a very high standard for use. I personally wouldn't apply it to those who wish to be referred to by there chosen gender. IIRC it was government that applied the label, not individuals or groups in society.
Why do you mentiong a potential future gender transition? Is there a rash of gender flip-flopers (I couldn't think up a better term!) that make this concerning?
People now say they’re “gender fluid”. So given this fluidity it might make sense to always use the nonspecific pronoun in order to prevent retrospective character assassination due to something said without the ability to predict the future.
I've never thought of retroactively applying gender pronouns. The binary trans people I know don't judge what they used to be call. For a gender fluid person, they is the safe bet. The New Yorker article mentions one such person in such a way
Previously a female, wanted to be male. This is fine. In NZ/AUS if someone transitioned its just "him/he" or "she/her" now. The problem is the growing trend in the US where its. "Oh I'm totally female, but don't refer to me as her/she, I'm non-binary and want you to use XYZ pronouns". This "non-binary" thing is highly confusing.
That's just the spin that the New Yorker desperately wants to put on it, because much to their chagrin, Torvalds doesn't seem to have said anything sexist.
The first time I've seen it reported that Linus was compensated 1.6M. (not related to the subject of abusive behavior)
I'd also like to say as a manager of a bunch of top notch woman engineers, we don't have an abusive environment, we don't have a frat boy environment, and it's friggin awesome. (and we are hiring, PM me :) )
Also first I've heard that the New Yorker was directly involved in the decision:
Torvalds’s decision to step aside came after The New Yorker asked him a series of questions about his conduct for a story on complaints about his abusive behavior discouraging women from working as Linux-kernel programmers.
On the topic of women engineers and also as a manager of top-notch woman engineers: wholly agree. For the Moneyball readers, I sometimes joke that women engineers are the Greek Gods of Walks when it comes to software development. Which is really just another way of saying that characteristics traditionally associated with women correlate in my experience with skills that are often underestimated in software development and evaluating them with brogrammer-world biases is a competitive disadvantage.
The no-context Linus quotes and the outlining of how he gets paid made this article seem like somewhat of a hatchet job meant to milk clicks out of the #MeToo movement, which I otherwise have no problem with.
Avoiding the difficult questions raised by the article, I’d like to keep it simple: I won’t work with someone that thinks it’s okay to tell a coworker to kill themselves, even if it’s hyperbole.
He didn't say it to a co-worker, he said it to a hypothetical person that doesn't actually exist in the real world.
Quote:
"So here's a plea: if you have anything to do with security in a distro, and think that my kids (replace "my kids" with "sales people on the road" if you think your main customers are businesses) need to have the root password to access some wireless network, or to be able to print out a paper, or to change the date-and-time settings, please just kill yourself now. The world will be a better place."
EDIT: Why is this getting downvoted? Because the truth doesn't fit the narrative?
At the end of the day Linus is making a very clearcut threat here: "if you harbor a particular idea on this topic then I believe you have no right to exist and should end your life immediately". That's wholly out of bounds in a technical discussion. Especially coming from a person in a position of ultimate power.
First of all, the whole thing is hyperbole. Linus doesn't actually believe people should kill themselves over holding that particular opinion, which no actual person holds anyway.
Secondly, you added that "you have no right to exist" part yourself. It comes from your imagination, not Linus Torvalds.
Lastly, it wasn't a technical discussion. It wasn't on a mailing list. It was a random personal Google Plus post where Linus vented about some annoyance he faced using an actual Linux distribution (OpenSUSE). Obviously he's not in a position of "ultimate power" because he can't force the OpenSUSE guys to change that annoying behavior for him.
Because it's completely OTT. There's a reasonable point in there, but he had to go ruin it. It's like the recent Boris Johnson gaff with "letterboxes". A reasonable point pushed out of sight by bravado.
Did you actually read the linked post before posting that? This is the final para:
So here's a plea: if you have anything to do with security in a distro, and think that my kids (replace "my kids" with "sales people on the road" if you think your main customers are businesses) need to have the root password to access some wireless network, or to be able to print out a paper, or to change the date-and-time settings, please just kill yourself now. The world will be a better place.
Given the above, do you feel that Mr T is telling a coworker to kill themself or simply sounding off?
As it turns out I do have something to do with security in a distro and yet for some reason I don't feel threatened by Mr T.
I thought we were talking about abusing others? Someone's rights to feel negative emotions doesn't extend to other people, nor is it right to ask others to bear that cost.
There's nothing wrong with unpleasant emotions. They are necessary. But most people aren't arguing against that. They're arguing against unnecessarily negative or abusive behavior.
Every person is free to experience their own unpleasant emotions. It's not OK to verbally abuse other people just because you can't control those emotions. It's especially offensive with email since it takes time to type and one could make a habit of not hitting send immediately - write a draft and give yourself time to cool off, then edit out the nastiness before sending. If that seems a waste of time, one might learn to just not write the stuff that needs to be removed in the first place just for efficiency sake.
"Torvalds’s decision to step aside came after The New Yorker asked him a series of questions about his conduct for a story on complaints about his abusive behavior discouraging women from working as Linux-kernel programmers."
Oh, is that because women are very sensitive, emotionally fragile creatures that must not be exposed to strong language? That sounds like 1950s-style sexism to me.
I have an alternative theory: Most women don't value having the dude-bro credit of "having worked on the Linux kernel". Who actually employs Linux kernel hackers and who wants to work there? You're far better off learning <javascript framework of the now> and work in some hip young startup with hip young people.
It's because the allowance of women to exist in technical communities is already marginal due to years and years of entrenched misogyny. Women are well aware of this which is why they often tread more carefully and avoid conflict more often than men do. One way this shakes out is that women simply remove themselves from situations like this, where they are likely to face abuse and an uphill battle for recognition. If you're already starting as a marginal member of the community or an outsider then you're going to rationally decide to avoid that conflict. You're going to find other ways to spend your time, other projects to contribute to (maybe). This isn't just hypothetical, the article itself had several examples of women who had been contributing to the linux kernel who were discouraged from doing so by the toxic environment.
To break things down even simpler, whenever there is a pre-existing power imbalance it's typical for destructive actions that are, in theory, unbiased to nevertheless result in an amplification of the pre-existing power imbalance.
You're right I am. I was attempting to place extra emphasis on the sections of the post I thought helped highlight my post. I'm sorry I wasn't doing it properly. I took the entirety of the post in a different light you did, which I think is my fault and against the HN guidelines.
Linus crossed the line long ago and it's good that he's taking a break to reevaluate his actions. It's one thing to be passionate and opinionated but Linus has shown to be a downright asshole in his administration of Linux.
My experiences as a leader have shown me, time and time again, that people respond far better to praising what they did right, rather than excessively focusing on the negative. If Linus is serious about this, it's going to ultimately make Linux even better.
>people respond far better to praising what they did right, rather than excessively focusing on the negative
Interesting. I wonder how much impact all the negative feedback from social media and traditional media had on the timeline of the behavior standards for LKML.
I'm not sure how I feel about this article. On the one hand, it brings to attention an important side effect of the unfriendliness of the community around Linus, namely that it's particularly discouraging to women. On the other hand, the problem is that it's a mean culture with Linus at its core. Based on this article it doesn't sound like he's sexist per se, even though the consequences of his behavior affect women more.
It's a tricky line to draw, especially since many people in tech are openly sexist. At the end of the day, I'm happy with the idea that creating a more civil community will also help address some of the gender issues.
> I'm not sure how I feel about this article. On the one hand, it brings to attention an important side effect of the unfriendliness of the community around Linus, namely that it's particularly discouraging to women.
Why? What does that have to do with women? Linus said nothing about women. If you want to argue that women are hypersensitive and avoid conflict and therefore Linus is discouraging them, say it. Except saying that would be sexist, wouldn't it?
Submissions (and comments, for that matter) are flagged by members. When enough members flag an item, the [flagged] tag appears.
Asking why an item got flagged is in many ways pointless: as there's no single member responsible, finding an answer more definitive answer than "users flagged it" is nigh impossible.
Speculating, this may have ended up displaying a [flagged] tag because a significant discussion regarding the topic happened very recently (3 days ago, over 2K votes, over 900 comments).[0] The discussion in many ways is contentious and generally produces more heat than light and new insight. Members may feel there's little to be gained by discussing it again.
Discussions on this topic have descended into culture war elsewhere and been shut down.
It would be great if at least one thread could discuss how management of software projects can evolve to better serve all contributors instead of people digging trenches.
I am guilty of enjoying Linus tirades, especially when he is making technical arguments. I think a lot of people use colourful language as emphasis. I don't subscribe to the idea that women are delicate flowers and need to be protected from a bit of swearing. Adults in general shouldn't be wrapped in cotton wool. But Linux hasn't been a hobby project for ages and development discussions are open and archived and improving the quality of discourse there is worthwhile. If Linus can learn to communicate better, while maintaining his honesty and passion it will benefit everyone, himself included.
I am a bit disappointed that this has been mixed up with gender politics because it seems to me that the lack of representation by gender, race, social position etc is a bigger societal issue and putting any of that back on Linus seems a little unfair.
> I don't subscribe to the idea that women are delicate flowers and need to be protected from a bit of swearing.
You're right that women - like anyone - are generally capable of dealing with a harsh environment, but the difference is women are penalized for doing so.
The most effective way to operate in a harsh environment is to match it. If busting balls is the way your peers call attention to a technical issue, then when you want someone to pay attention, you'll bust their balls. If someone challenges you in a rude way, often a rude rebuttal is the most effective response.
Women can do that just as well as anyone else, but the problem is when they do, they're judged more harshly. This isn't a question of corporate policy, but of human socialization. We all unconsciously expect women to be more mild and agreeable. So when they are rude, profane, or combative, we notice it much more readily and it provokes a stronger emotional reaction. People are much more likely to write them off as "unprofessional" or "drama". This in turn closes off one of the main options for dealing with a harsh environment.
There are two possible solutions to this: fix human socialization so that people no longer have involuntary unconscious biases about combative women, or simply cultivate an environment that discourages everyone from being combative, so we can avoid the issue and get back to building stuff.
The former would be ideal, but it requires broad sweeping social change (and a lot of time). Until that can happen, we unfortunately have to settle for the latter.
> I think a lot of people use colourful language as emphasis.
You do not need to curse in a professional environment, full stop.
Letting a word fly out by mistake is one thing, it can happen to anyone. But overwhelming your emails, messages, and speech with curse words when it's completely and utterly unnecessary and can make people uncomfortable is unacceptable. We're all adults here, you need to be able to control your language and not make excuses for it.
In terms of lack of representation I don't see how they are not mixed up. When you're already the outsider/minority things like this just serve to further reinforce that feeling of not belonging. It is just another source of friction that reinforces the cycle of under-representation and if your goal is to break that cycle then making the environment as inclusive as possible is certainly something you need to deal with.
A) A guy who thinks you're an idiot, and tells you--to your face--exactly why he thinks you are one.
or...
B) typical open office dweller who also thinks you're an idiot, lacks the stones to tell you in-person, yet somehow manages to have just the right amount of stones to tell everyone else how stupid you are.
All I know is that we have a whole lotta people in this industry with absolutely no business plucking the splinter out of Linus's eye.
The problem isn’t what Linus says. The problem is people are too sensitive. Whatever happened to “sticks and stones...?” You don’t like the Linux kernel, variable names in code, or the community, then make your own. The tools are there. You sensitive folks ruin everything with your fifis. Linux is dope. Never apologize to these people because it validates and emboldens them.
This should stay on the homepage. The claim that Linus's recent action was in fact a reaction to their story is new information, that substantially changes conversation. This is not a dupe nor a needless rehash
I've never understood why the people who complain about this don't just fork and start a new community, which will a priori be much better (er, right?).
I suppose most people see the sense in a "middle-ground" where you work to improve a community you value instead of abandoning it at the first sight of trouble?
63 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] threadIn a similar vein, it took me a few weeks a few weeks to remember to call an, previously female, employee "he" once they transitioned. It was important to them as a person, so I made it important to me as their employer.
How is this any different to remembering not to use a newly married person's maiden name? Do you complain about being confused with all the "non-original" surnames you need to remember after a wedding?
Is it to prevent future thoughtcrime in case the person in question decides to use another pronoun again?
I wouldn't say I fixed my pronoun use. I used the term that properly identified the person I was speaking about.
Thoughtcrime is something to me that has a very high standard for use. I personally wouldn't apply it to those who wish to be referred to by there chosen gender. IIRC it was government that applied the label, not individuals or groups in society.
Why do you mentiong a potential future gender transition? Is there a rash of gender flip-flopers (I couldn't think up a better term!) that make this concerning?
(edited)
I'd also like to say as a manager of a bunch of top notch woman engineers, we don't have an abusive environment, we don't have a frat boy environment, and it's friggin awesome. (and we are hiring, PM me :) )
Torvalds’s decision to step aside came after The New Yorker asked him a series of questions about his conduct for a story on complaints about his abusive behavior discouraging women from working as Linux-kernel programmers.
On the topic of women engineers and also as a manager of top-notch woman engineers: wholly agree. For the Moneyball readers, I sometimes joke that women engineers are the Greek Gods of Walks when it comes to software development. Which is really just another way of saying that characteristics traditionally associated with women correlate in my experience with skills that are often underestimated in software development and evaluating them with brogrammer-world biases is a competitive disadvantage.
Quote: "So here's a plea: if you have anything to do with security in a distro, and think that my kids (replace "my kids" with "sales people on the road" if you think your main customers are businesses) need to have the root password to access some wireless network, or to be able to print out a paper, or to change the date-and-time settings, please just kill yourself now. The world will be a better place."
EDIT: Why is this getting downvoted? Because the truth doesn't fit the narrative?
Secondly, you added that "you have no right to exist" part yourself. It comes from your imagination, not Linus Torvalds.
Lastly, it wasn't a technical discussion. It wasn't on a mailing list. It was a random personal Google Plus post where Linus vented about some annoyance he faced using an actual Linux distribution (OpenSUSE). Obviously he's not in a position of "ultimate power" because he can't force the OpenSUSE guys to change that annoying behavior for him.
So here's a plea: if you have anything to do with security in a distro, and think that my kids (replace "my kids" with "sales people on the road" if you think your main customers are businesses) need to have the root password to access some wireless network, or to be able to print out a paper, or to change the date-and-time settings, please just kill yourself now. The world will be a better place.
Given the above, do you feel that Mr T is telling a coworker to kill themself or simply sounding off?
As it turns out I do have something to do with security in a distro and yet for some reason I don't feel threatened by Mr T.
Oh, is that because women are very sensitive, emotionally fragile creatures that must not be exposed to strong language? That sounds like 1950s-style sexism to me.
I have an alternative theory: Most women don't value having the dude-bro credit of "having worked on the Linux kernel". Who actually employs Linux kernel hackers and who wants to work there? You're far better off learning <javascript framework of the now> and work in some hip young startup with hip young people.
To break things down even simpler, whenever there is a pre-existing power imbalance it's typical for destructive actions that are, in theory, unbiased to nevertheless result in an amplification of the pre-existing power imbalance.
That because of their gender they are instead are just drawn to new and shiny languages/frameworks?
Edited for GC clarity
"You're far better off learning <javascript framework of the now> and work in some hip young startup with hip young people."
Edited for clarity
He said learning a fashionable js framework would be more desirable because few companies hire kernel hackers.
He said nothing about women being drawn to it because of their gender.
Good read - "Negative Feedback Rarely Leads To Improvement" https://hbr.org/2018/01/negative-feedback-rarely-leads-to-im...
Interesting. I wonder how much impact all the negative feedback from social media and traditional media had on the timeline of the behavior standards for LKML.
No, that is Python.
Although it distributes its product for free, the Linux project has grown to resemble a blue-chip tech company
Which blue-chip company would that be?
Nominally a volunteer enterprise, like Wikipedia, Linux, in fact, is primarily sustained by ...
That's nice, dear.
Not the best start but get past that and keep going and it is a really well researched article.
THE FIRST FIVE OR SIX FUCKING PARAS OF THAT PATCHY ARTICLE WERE FUCKING SHIT.
It's a tricky line to draw, especially since many people in tech are openly sexist. At the end of the day, I'm happy with the idea that creating a more civil community will also help address some of the gender issues.
Why? What does that have to do with women? Linus said nothing about women. If you want to argue that women are hypersensitive and avoid conflict and therefore Linus is discouraging them, say it. Except saying that would be sexist, wouldn't it?
Submissions (and comments, for that matter) are flagged by members. When enough members flag an item, the [flagged] tag appears.
Asking why an item got flagged is in many ways pointless: as there's no single member responsible, finding an answer more definitive answer than "users flagged it" is nigh impossible.
Speculating, this may have ended up displaying a [flagged] tag because a significant discussion regarding the topic happened very recently (3 days ago, over 2K votes, over 900 comments).[0] The discussion in many ways is contentious and generally produces more heat than light and new insight. Members may feel there's little to be gained by discussing it again.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18000698
It would be great if at least one thread could discuss how management of software projects can evolve to better serve all contributors instead of people digging trenches.
I am guilty of enjoying Linus tirades, especially when he is making technical arguments. I think a lot of people use colourful language as emphasis. I don't subscribe to the idea that women are delicate flowers and need to be protected from a bit of swearing. Adults in general shouldn't be wrapped in cotton wool. But Linux hasn't been a hobby project for ages and development discussions are open and archived and improving the quality of discourse there is worthwhile. If Linus can learn to communicate better, while maintaining his honesty and passion it will benefit everyone, himself included.
I am a bit disappointed that this has been mixed up with gender politics because it seems to me that the lack of representation by gender, race, social position etc is a bigger societal issue and putting any of that back on Linus seems a little unfair.
You're right that women - like anyone - are generally capable of dealing with a harsh environment, but the difference is women are penalized for doing so.
The most effective way to operate in a harsh environment is to match it. If busting balls is the way your peers call attention to a technical issue, then when you want someone to pay attention, you'll bust their balls. If someone challenges you in a rude way, often a rude rebuttal is the most effective response.
Women can do that just as well as anyone else, but the problem is when they do, they're judged more harshly. This isn't a question of corporate policy, but of human socialization. We all unconsciously expect women to be more mild and agreeable. So when they are rude, profane, or combative, we notice it much more readily and it provokes a stronger emotional reaction. People are much more likely to write them off as "unprofessional" or "drama". This in turn closes off one of the main options for dealing with a harsh environment.
There are two possible solutions to this: fix human socialization so that people no longer have involuntary unconscious biases about combative women, or simply cultivate an environment that discourages everyone from being combative, so we can avoid the issue and get back to building stuff.
The former would be ideal, but it requires broad sweeping social change (and a lot of time). Until that can happen, we unfortunately have to settle for the latter.
You do not need to curse in a professional environment, full stop.
Letting a word fly out by mistake is one thing, it can happen to anyone. But overwhelming your emails, messages, and speech with curse words when it's completely and utterly unnecessary and can make people uncomfortable is unacceptable. We're all adults here, you need to be able to control your language and not make excuses for it.
In terms of lack of representation I don't see how they are not mixed up. When you're already the outsider/minority things like this just serve to further reinforce that feeling of not belonging. It is just another source of friction that reinforces the cycle of under-representation and if your goal is to break that cycle then making the environment as inclusive as possible is certainly something you need to deal with.
A) A guy who thinks you're an idiot, and tells you--to your face--exactly why he thinks you are one.
or...
B) typical open office dweller who also thinks you're an idiot, lacks the stones to tell you in-person, yet somehow manages to have just the right amount of stones to tell everyone else how stupid you are.
All I know is that we have a whole lotta people in this industry with absolutely no business plucking the splinter out of Linus's eye.