I agree that some conduct guidelines are justified, but should be minimal. The feeling against them is due to overreach, where they stray away from codifying generally acceptable behaviour and move into territory that the general population would find incomprehensible, such as not being able to say that someone with the opposite opinion is wrong.

> NumFOCUS found I violated their Code of Conduct (CoC) at JupyterCon because my talk was not “kind”, because I said Joel Grus was “wrong” regarding his opinion that Jupyter Notebook is not a good software development environment

Wow.

Don't leave out the best part (the very next sentence)

> Joel (who I greatly respect, and consider an asset to the data science community) was not involved in NumFOCUS’s action, was not told about it, and did not support it.

Excuse me sir, you've committed a thought crime for not following propaganda guidelines on independent thought and expression.

You have violated the CoC by presuming to use the honorific "sir", thus promoting gender opression!

FWIW I've got a female friend who was in enlisted the US Navy and she spoke of female naval officers who were addressed as "Sir" rather than "Ma'am" (though most went by "Ma'am").

So I don't know how to feel about anything anymore.

That's a common trope in sci-fi -- I think Star Trek TNG and Battlestar Gallactica had the female officers addressed as "sir".

We can criticize this specific instance of CoC enforcement without making fun of legitimate gender issues in technology.

Not OP, but I don't think they were making fun of the legitimate issues. There have been plenty of instances of pronoun-related overreactions in and outside the tech sector - see the recent-ish StackOverflow mess for an example. There are obviously many issues, but there are also many overblown non-issues and I don't see much harm in making fun of those.

Some people make jokes and don't realize the effect they have on the people who have to be the victims of those comments day in and day out. I'm sorry if that's not easy to understand. These are the same people who think women don't belong in tech, or that people who choose pronouns are "snowflakes". It's why we don't have as many women in tech and it really needs to stop.

Remember, this is just one side. Is there any detailed response from the other side? With something like this the tone and atmosphere has a grave weight on the perception. Like you can say someone is wrong in a nice, professional way, but also in a meany, bullying way.

And it doesn't even need to be seen by the involved people as mean, if they have such a "toxic" type relationship. But a Code of Conduct is also a bit about the perception of others, and how it sells a project.

In his statement there are hints indicating in this direction. He mentions his talk was made as a parody. Parodies by nature are on a thin line between being funny englightment, and being mean bullying. So it can be the case that his see himself as funny, while other might see it as a mean insult.

And he mentions some unwritten rules which were applied to him specifically because his talk was somewhat special because it was an opener(?) or something. Which means he got more attention than your regular talk.

AFAICT, according to the apology he had been accused but not convicted of the violation.

According to his account, he was told that he had been convicted.

According to him, now, he disagrees with that assertion in their apology. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24946688.

> According to his account, he was told that he had been convicted.

The apology states that this was a "crucial miscommunication that we take responsibility for"

OTOH, from Jeremy Howard's account it really does sound like the committee doubled down on that miscommunication so often that it seems hard to believe that's all it was.

And my judgement after all available information is that they are straight up lying.

Here is why.

His stated recollection is that they said, “that is what the reporters stated, and what we found” and to his asking why his statement was not requested, “we all watched the video, so we could see for ourselves the violation”.

What they said in his version is very clear. That is not a miscommunication. Calling it a "miscommunication" sounds like nothing more than the best excuse that they came up with for themselves.

Therefore this reduces down to a simple "he said, she said" type of conflict. What I have to judge on is what is publicly known of his character, their incentives, and indications about their character. He has a solid public reputation as an upstanding person. Their incentives are to minimize perception of wrongdoing in their actions. Both the fact that they got into this mess, and their non-apology in attempting to get out of it, suggests that they lack even a shred of integrity.

Therefore it is his word against theirs. He is believable. They are not. And so I conclude that they are lying on this point.

Isn't concluding that they are lying without solid evidence basically the same crime that you're accusing them of committing against Jeremy Howard?

No, not even a little bit. There is a gigantic gulf between an organization with power in the situation making an official finding, and an individual with no power over the situation looking at the facts and forming a conclusion.

A common enemy, often fictitious, or with enough fictitious components to its character to render it a travesty of reality.

Thanks for the list, she doesn’t recognise any of the sites listed there. Also she has burner/spam email addresses she uses for smaller/less reputable sites, this is the main email address so it must have come from a big, reputable site.

It’s art.

I don’t, they can say anything posing as anyone and the general public will believe it, this is a genuine hazard. Seriously, if I were them I’d pull the plug until this is fixed.

This is nuts, Twitter is totally compromised and they haven’t pulled the plug. Not confidence inspiring.

Going against the grain here, yes, I would.

Professionally I haven’t been very involved in deployment, but my experience deploying personal projects to, and configuring, Linux servers has taught me that the process is confusing, poorly documented and difficult. Don’t get me wrong, it’s doable and I’ve done it (likely poorly), but after a day of stitching together steps from blogs and frequent back-tracking and starting from scratch, you have to wonder if there isn’t a more user-friendly way.

I’d hope that windows server offers this, though I don’t know that it does, as I haven’t much experience with it. As windows is considerably more GUI centric than Linux that could be a big plus for me personally. I’d certainly check it out, at least to compare the experience to Linux.

But currently, given that windows servers are not free, Linux wins hands down.

> And in terms of replicating, these are derived from stem cells.

All of everyone’s cells are derived from stem cells. The issue is still how prone to uncontrolled proliferation they are, not so much having a population of a particular cell type in the wrong place.

I was being less technical with my terminology for a layperson audience - but to clarify - these are derived from induced stem cells, which are cells engineered to go back into a stem type state, which means they're basically induced to be cancers. These are not zygotes from germline fells formed in the niche where they are supported to differentiate correctly etc. IPSCs are not embryonic stem cells, and even ESC derived stem cell lines have been growing so long in culture that they do not behave like germline cells. And even then, the method of differentiation and control is not what happens in normal development, we're sending them different pathways. Turning somatic cells into stem cells is fundamentally giving them the ability to proliferate, and their failure to differentiate into the cells we want shows a failure to control them. Like I said, this is a known problem and one with significant investment behind it as people are finding better and better ways to isolate artificial pancreases to prevent the (currently) inevitable carcinogenesis of these ipsc derived cells

The main benefit is handling binding and state, and allowing you to easily break your application into a component hierarchy of reusable components. It also has an ecosystem that will let you find packages for most anything you want to do, probably in five different ways.