But who is "they"? What does it mean to be "on the same side as Rust"? What if Rust maintainers disagree? Being on a side suggests an unwillingness to part ways, which is more commitment than merely agreeing to a set of beliefs at some time. If Rust is a worthy rock in the political sphere for the moment, then there is no trouble in believing alike, but only for the moment. Every actor should prove themselves constantly, not to be orbited.
>What does it mean to be "on the same side as Rust"?
There is a stated and auctioned stance the rust foundation poses, and they are saying they align with that. At this point if you can see their point the communication fault is yours.
>Being on a side suggests an unwillingness to part ways
No it doesn't.
>If Rust is a worthy rock in the political sphere for the moment
I have to assume their politics is more intimate to them than the maintainers of a programming language, and that they used it here because the conversation we are having is around rust.
You used "they" several times, so I took a certain usage to mean "Rust", and I was asking who specifically "Rust" entails. Who defines the "Rust beliefs"?
> > Being on a side suggests an unwillingness to part ways
"Suggests", as in, "it is likely implied that" (emphasis on "likely"), though I should've been more clear.
> I have to assume their politics is more intimate to them than the maintainers of a programming language, and that they used it here because the conversation we are having is around rust.
The primary topic is politics.
---
I find issue with the framing of "taking sides". I hear it and think of fragmentation for the sake of fragmentation. There is a distinct difference in saying "I side with Rust" and "I agree with Rust", the latter being reducible to "Rust believes [a belief]" and "I believe [the same belief]". The former can be used to mean the latter, but I choose to focus on the likely implication.
So you can see why they put it in scare quotes. Just above your reply another says it's politically neutral to adopt whatever pronouns the speaker feels is valid, and not punish them for it. This is "neutral" in that it sides with the speaker regardless of who they are, but is clearly designed to allow bigots to misgender freely. That is the point, "neutral" is not so trivially defined, and often falls on the side of more conservative societal trends.
What would you consider to be truly politically neutral, then? Because it seems we're in agreement that a decision to "refer to all trans people using they/them" would not fit the bill. But whether it's politically neutral or not, it's unnecessarily exclusionary; that's what I take issue with.
(for the record I do realize the phrase 'politically neutral' is vague and unclear, and often used as a conservative dogwhistle, which is why I generally avoid it)
An example of the sort of Code of Conduct I personally feel is the most inclusive and 'politically neutral' in a non-scare-quotes-dogwhistle way is the Hacker News guidelines[0]. I think the moderation in general here does a good job of promoting open discussion across people from a wide variety of backgrounds.
I assumed you were talking about laws because the social default in places like the south of the US is definitely that visibly queer people should hide.
It would be nice to see some actual change. It's not just these soldiers. The rape and torture of prisoners has been noted in Israeli law enforcement for years. The entire institution needs to be gutted and cleaned up.
soldiers committed (allegedly, to be determined by court) a crime. crime is been prosecuted by military prosecutor. usually this is how accountability looks .
you suggested that it's not appropriate and they been thrown under a bus. i'll say that your response is the one that started with hyperboles
Accountability does not end with the two people that caught with the most egregious of the crimes. It also extends into addressing the systems that lead to them torturing other people. If Israel was taking accountability for the crimes they've committed it would stop at two random soldiers. So to re-answer, honestly no, this doesn't not look like accountability to me.
Wouldn't an intelligent computer know to use tools? The core of the point being discussed seems to be why do you need to ask it to make it you inventory software when an intelligent system would know that when asked to build an inventory system setting up a database and logging all the information is need and ask agents to do that.
It's the same question that you might have asked in 1920. "This radio hardly works at all. Can't they do something about all the static? I don't see the big deal. This is just a scam to sell batteries and tubes."
A radio isn't intelligent and isn't marketed as such. If you're going to sell software you call intelligent, I don't think I'm out of pocket for saying "this feels even dumber than regular software I use."
(Shrug) Well, I do. I don't know where you people get the idea that these sorts of things spring forth fully-formed from the brow of Zeus, but it doesn't work that way.
Sounds like evasion to me. At some point you'll need to explain exactly why systems that thrash Go grandmasters, make entire forums fail the Turing test, and take gold at international math and programming competitions are "fundamentally not intelligent."
The only argument you (and Toucan, who's been around longer) seem to muster is that the systems aren't perfect. They occasionally say stupid things, need extra handholding, babble nonsense and write buggy code, commit blatant plagiarism, fall into fallacious reasoning traps, and can be fooled with simple tricks... unlike people, presumably.
Limited tests in specific settings are always surprising and do speak to it's use, but are not a testament to it being intelligent.
I replied because you answered "you're doing it wrong" to a question of it's failures. It seems you dismiss the concerns of the smaller errors or failures without realizing the point being made. If it's "smart" enough to solve take international math medals and beat grand masters at go, but can't truly understand problems and anticipate needs or issues, to me it's not a genuine intelligence and in it's current form never will be.
It's not that they are not perfect, is that they have no concept of reality, and it's evident in their failures. Beyond this point I am not interested in trying to convince you.
