Wow, the tone alone leaves much to be desired. You must have a very unempathetic culture where you live. Best of luck to you dude, all the warmth and kindness and good vibes!
Wow, you must be a miserable, wretched, shell of a person to possibly write something like this. It’s really sad no one ever taught you manners. Hopefully one day you learn to be happy and a better person like me.
I am going to reply to you genuinely... but not like you will read it :/
You have lots of snark in your original reply you may have missed. I'm talking mother in law (MIL) levels of passive aggressiveness. The sort of bullying done by being positive, like hiding a knife in a cake.
You may have not intended for it to come off that way, but that's the wonder of the internet, context is lost and pitchforks are primed.
The OP seems to be just invested in the stance that the system exists and status quo is okay dokay -- Even I disagree with that viewpoint and feel like this can boxed up as ezpz PR by helping the repo recover stars and "thank" them for testing the grey areas in the UX. Or OP just really doesn't disagree with systems where, yes you can shoot yourself in the foot, but hey, just push the responsibility on the user and wash your hands clean (Lady Macbeth should have done this). Arguing this opens a pandora box of other requests might be from his experience, so I can't really pew pew that since it might have increased his workload previously, but certain people get priority/hidden privileges more than others everyone on social meda (e.g. famous people are verified faster) and it's not really out of the ordinary.
He is norwegian anyway, and I am previously familiar with them in their natural habitat[0] and can empathize with them on this viewpoint. Regardless, it's a pretty popular mindsent among the programmer crowd, that systems must be respected and learned and its heresy otherwise, victim blaming is commonplace. RTFM and PEBKAC. But honestly you can't always 'git push --force' your problems away, and at the end of the day here, you will be penalized with downvotes for this sometimes going against the grain -- but whenever there is a zeitgeist of common sense (e.g. Amazon warehouse threads or other PIP dog pilling) people realize this and turn the dial back, but ultimately holding a moral position of kindness/goodwill needs a lot more wordcraft to avoid getting downvoted in the field.
Github did tweet to ask people to support the project, to witch the project starts comparing it to a situation where github restored their own data, as if that was unfair.
The post also seems to wildly overestimate the importance of the project and the effect on github and Microsoft. It also seems to be written just to pressure github into giving the project special treatment.
The post even states:
"After all, GitHub has a history of taking controversial actions that go against the spirit of open source and community and then reverting them only based on public outrage."
So the post seems to be made overly dramatic on purpose.
As for the opinion about the UI, I do prefer it as is, if that wasn't clear. There needs to be a balance between usability and protection, and I think github has done a great job. It would of course be nice if it didn't get deleted and instead just stopped sending events.
I'm not sure why the drive-by, off-topic, gratuitous dig at vegans, as if you've decided they're a fair target, even in a comment instructing about kindness. I downvoted and flagged your comment for that. The HN guidelines apply regardless of your subject.
Sorry, and thanks for correcting my guideline breaking. I am a stranger in strange lands...
I brought it up because its an easy way to bring a moral rightousness example on hckernews. Perhaps more merit to the idea one should think of how ones word are received without context. To me as a casual reader here its like the space and tab holy war, except actually real. I don't dislike vegans per say as eat 80% vegetarian for health reasons.
Is it presumptuous to assume you are vegan and took offense? If so, could you share some viewpoints on your decision if you are?
The issue I have with this article is that it sounds too good to be true. All pros, and seamingly no cons. Either the authors are embellishing it a little bit, or don’t want to think/write about cons a lot. Or both. I wish they balanced things a little bit more.
