I find that many smaller (and bigger probably too, but I've never looked at them too closely) open source projects work this way: there's a guy or a small team that made a program, usually for their own use or just for fun, and they share the source because others might find it useful too. Normally, they do most of the development, but sometimes a user adds a feature or fixes a bug, also just for personal use. In that case the user can submit a PR, basically saying "hey, I like your program but I needed it to have X so I added it. It's your project, but if you also think X is useful feel free to use my implementation".
@@ifstatementifstatement2704 true, but that means that if there's a change in the main project that breaks your change, you're faced with a dilemma: ignore the new change or resolve the incompatibility. The first means giving up on the new features and fixes, the second is a pain. And maintaining a project is a pain too. Some people just want to contribute as a one-off thing, without it becoming a long-term commitment. But if the contribution is not welcome, well, that's too bad
The way he says open source development *should* work is how it *does* work! Pull requests are the exception. Its for "drive-by coding". When you fix a little thing, but have no interest to become an active maintainer. At least in good projects. And in open source there are good and bad projects, just like everywhere else.
In about 20 years of contributing to free/open source software have never submitted any substantial amount of code to a project without first discussing the design with the maintainers on a mailing list or in an issue tracker. If the change is an obvious bug fix that does not change any behavior and/or if the change is small enough that it's just quicker to send a suggestion/prototype as a pull request I'll do that. As usual Jon have far from the whole picture for anything that isn't game development.
I used good opens source programs, John also is using open source libraries in his production games, but it's always makes you feel better when you can criticize things.
open source is awesome. his complains are valid issues. but you definitely still want open source. i tend to not accept pull requests and just let people fork it or copy paste it to add their own features
I'm confused. In the first part of the video labeled "Pull Requests" he says he finds pull requests "offensive", because he doesn't want to "submit to the judgment" of other people. But in the second part, "Open source philosophy" he says "It matters if you check in stuff" that is good or bad, and if you "lose that culture of technical judgment of what is good or what is bad", then software is over. It's almost as if he's saying he wants to be the arbiter of what is good or bad, but no one should decide that about his work. Am I understanding this correctly?
Git commits by the team doesn't mean it's an external pull requests by other developers. Maybe that is what he means. But it's very vague indeed. I also use merge requests myself on my own projects.
The video surprised me. It sure began with a nonsensical statement about open source and pull requests (as expected), but then proceeded to deliver a very insightful point about human nature and present day culture and the future of human society
The biggest flaw of open source, to me, is the mentality that because a popular open source solution exists, everyone should be using it. You mention LLVM. When doing research for my compiler/language most people just said to just write a front-end to LLVM and that I'd be dumb 'reinvent the wheel.' I chose to not listen to them. I'm sure LLVM is fine but I don't want to be tied to their ecosystem, their decisions, and their philosophy. Innovation happens because people reject the current status quo and find better ways to do things that suit their needs.
Open source is just great, you can learn from other people, you know exactly what the software does and doesn't, and you can also share it with other people and they might help you to improve it.
He is unfortunately correct. Collaborative open source is rarely creative and/or well-polished. A great contrary example to follow is Blender, maybe because of its modularity (some guy codes a cool add-on and it gets integrated into a release).
Jon Blow has a very outspoken opinion on a lot of topics :p I personally like the idea of pull requests for very large projects. I've also seen pull request elitism happen in a corporate setting and basically it can completely drain your project/resources/team. After a few months of it management shut it down because they almost got a riot on their hands. Pull requests are there to be used in a sane, sensible way.
"There is something very negative about submitting to the judgement of people who you believe have very bad taste." (Jonathan Blow)
3 года назад+36
This video and the comments are a good example of how easy it is for people to misunderstand and talk past each other. This happens because the original context and the target audience are different from the context where the message is interpreted. Short and strong statements assume that the target audience has specific knowledge and opinions, which means that the chance of being misunderstood is low enough. If you're talking to a target audience that has different knowledge and opinions, you have to carefully qualify all your statements to avoid being misunderstood and stereotyped. It's easy to dismiss valid and nuanced critique if it seems similar to another, more stupid and rude critique. And once you have stereotyped someone as stupid and rude, it's hard to stop. It takes courage and skill to imagine that you are wrong, especially if your incorrect interpretation has strong feelings and seemingly valid data supporting it. People who are passionate about what they do are very sensitive to mistakes, and they can get very emotional about their opinions, usually because they are supported by painful personal experience. People who have the same passions can have wildly different personal experiences, which means that they have wildly different access to the truth. They still have some shared knowledge and opinions, but they have a different balance of importance and a different understanding of causes and effects. This is why they focus on different things in their critiques, and why they propose different solutions and viewpoints. But because the critiques, solutions and viewpoints are all we see, when we don't understand them or feel threatened by them, we find the easiest way to discredit them and continue thinking that we have a good understanding of the big picture. The solution is to stop for a moment when someone says something we don't understand or don't agree with, and think about what knowledge and personal experiences the other person might have that we don't, and try to fill that gap by learning more about the person and what they know, while suspending our feelings and first impressions.
I get what Blow is saying and to an extent agree with him. However, people should try to maintain a base level of courtesy in their communication with colleagues. I don't think that's too much to ask for, regardless of personality traits. Needless hostility does not do anyone any good.
I agree but that's a standard that one holds themselves to. The people asking for "nice" seldom ever hold that standard for themselves. Just as he points out they think it's nice to recognize a rose as a desirable flower then get pissed that it has the audacity to grow thorns to protect itself... Why? Because they want to pluck the rose, enjoying the rose is nice anything that gets in the way of that happening as smoothly as possible is therefore not nice. They don't care that plucking the rose will eventually kill it for the next person who wants to appreciate its beauty. They'd rob the world to save themselves having to deal with a single prick. That's selfish and I wouldn't recommend anyone allow themselves to be tone-policed by the "nice brigade".
@@ragnarok7976 What would the alternative be then? To completely disregard everything other people think? There has to be a line somewhere, and that line is one we collectively draw when we as a group decide what our social rules should be. And for rules to be meaningful at all, they have to be policed.
@@Spiderboydk What? No, why would that be your first alternative, or mine for that matter? Ironically, you have to have more regard for what people are actually saying and put less stock in the way they say it. There was an experiment done on monkeys where they would have them in a big climbable pen. There was a bunch of bananas hanging at the top. Any monkey who would climb for the banana bunch would be sprayed with a fire hose. It didn't take long before all the other monkeys would shriek bloody murder the moment one of them tried to climb for the bananas. I don't know the exact moral of that story but I think it goes to show that tone doesn't always match intent and even a chorus of shrieking monkeys might have information about a situation that you don't. My solution is not to treat it as an all or nothing collective bargain but rather as your own personal standard. I don't really care how people address me I just try to address them as I think people should be addressed. I don't think "what could they do to make this process work better" I only think "what could I do to make this process better" because that's the only half that I'll actually have any control over. You don't have to take my word for it but I've tried it both ways many, many times. The lecture never works, if they aren't an amicable person they aren't going to accept it and if they are an amicable person they don't need it. Never once has someone I've lectured about tone or cordiality or anything else ever come back and said they were wrong or even sorry. That said when I tried just following my own standard and stopped letting the way others addressed me impact that standard the more people actually started respecting me, some came back and apologized for their behaviour towards me even though I made no coment on their behaviour at all. Maybe instead of drawing a collective line we each just draw our own and make sure we keep only ourselves to it, I mean if we can't keep to our own lines how in the hell are we gonna police someone back onto theirs?
I like open source. Some projects do some stuff bad. But Linus torvalds in one of his early talks on git talks about the hierarchy of trust for contributions to the linux kernel and that sounds like the right way to do open source. I think it’s his Google talk
Seems like there's two points being made here, one on PRs and gatekeeping, and then another on descructive criticism. To the point of the first argument I'm not really sure why it's really a problem. If you PR a feature that you think is good and doesn't get through, can't you just fork the project and cherry-pick the main project's commits from then on? In the worst case you'd still be leveraging other people's contributions while still being able to use your changes. In the best case the community rallies behind your fork and eventually adopts it. An exception to this might be something like a cryptocurrency where users need an agreed upon standard for it to work in a decentralized manner. But by using the project you're implicitly agreeing to have software that interacts with others by consensus, so that's just something you'd need to accept. Jon has a lot of interesting ideas, but this seems like a non-issue to me. Is there something I'm not getting?
The problem with open source is that there is no real design and no real vision. Everything is done according to the lowest common denominator and in the most generic manner. If open source really was wonderful the first thing it would be is usable, consistent and discoverable. For example, systemd aka one daemon to rule them all, is a big step into the wrong direction, making everything more obscure and harder to approach. I would have started many projects with Inkscape, but every time I found it equally confusing and never wanted to go back. Same with GIMP. Open source manages to be more complicated, constrained and confusing than it needs to be. And closed source is not a valid excuse. One can spend a lifetime hoping that it would get better, but it's the same thing over and over.
Before I make any pull request and do the work, I would totally ask the owners of the code about what I'm thinking before I go spend my time to do it. This is regardless of "git" or version control or etc. This is another straw man argument put together in these cuts, using one specific "bad case". I have contributed to a handful of projects, and taken over smaller abandoned projects. Open source means you fork it if you want. Do what you want with it. If it doesn't make it back to the base repo, oh well. If you're passionate enough about it, maintain your fork and let people know about it. Run your own show. Aside from that, I completely agree, there are some really toxic people and communities online, regardless of open source, etc. It's a problem on the internet, period, and I totally agree that those people have no place in OSS projects.
Ehm...what is Jonathan talking about? In OPEN source, you build trust via submitting patches . As you get more trust, you'll get an easier time getting patches in. Simple.
I see a lot of criticism of Jonathan Blow's views on Open Source. Frankly, I'd never heard of him until today, but I'm no noob; I've been in commercial CG software for more than 3 decades. He's absolutely right about Open Source. All of the reasons he's stated is why I've developed a new platform around a completely new product management/development methodology (i.e. different from Agile, Scrum, etc.). Time will tell if my methodology is sound: I'll know by this time next year. Wish me luck.
@@applepie9806 We've run into some technical hiccups along the way, but this thing looks *really* promising. We've discovered that a key to success lies in the clear organization and labeling of the OS's elements. It helps clearly identify what is and isn't effective, and it allows the creator (i.e. user) to gain full understanding of the platform without having to read a lot of docs. As I said, it's promising, but we're still testing..............
@@rafajaw We're behind schedule, unfortunately, but so goes massive software dev. But all I can say is that it's an OS for creators. In addition to creating content, you can even create new languages and language classes within it, an even modify existing languages to your liking. Still in testing, though.........
I couldn't find the VOD, unfortunately. It was on December 19th 2020, or shortly before. I don't even know whether it was on the stream or on the pre-streams. I had a resilio sync/bitsync link for the prestreams, but I lost it a couple of years ago.
What a completely idiotic, chaotic, and self-contradictory rant. First, he starts with the provably false statement that open source doesn't create anything new, and just copies. Lots of counterexamples to this exist: Debian pioneered package managers, which proprietary OS's don't have to this day, LLVM, which he cites himself, was the first project to have its own IR to ease compilation of several languages, while Jetbrains, the company who's leading devtools today is only now finishing migrating their Kotlin compiler to this architecture. Linux also pioneered kernel namespaces, which are the bases for modern virtualization, before its competitors. I don't know which cave he's been living in, but you don't need to send PRs or have your changes incorporated into the main project, you can fork it and merge upstream changes when a new version comes out. When I started FOSS devlopment more than ten years ago, I was in a project that did this and we just thought it was business as usual, as our focus was different. No friction at all between the projects. Also, he calls dismissing criticism as anti-engineering when he himself admitted he won't submit PR's because they would be criticized by the main project. Finally, he discusses banning people from his chat who criticize him and compares himself to Einstein, while giving absolutely no reason why his work should be taken as fundamental as Einstein's was. My guess is that he doesn't even know why criticism of relativity was so misguided, and has no idea what he's talking about. I won't comment on the rest because it's so incoherent that nothing can be taken from it, and he's just embarassing himself, as if working on his own language for eight years and not releasing anything wasn't embarassment enough already.
He also tried phrasing that pull requests are a class structure and the fix for that is ... another class structure? Let's not sugar coat, a trust system is definitely another hierarchy where you have the owners at the top who can decide who they trust. And in fact some projects already operate that way (although they often still accept external commits aka. PRs). You can't really stop people from making changes because that's why it's FOSS in the first place, if people want it fixed and fix it themselves they might be nice and ask you to add the commits to the main project, or they can just maintain their fork in which case the original project owner no longer has any say (so it's not a forced hierarchy contrary to what he said in the video)
I've worked with a million crotchety people who *thought* they were Einsteins, and used that as an excuse to be rude and tiresome. As a technical person who puts a lot of effort into being considerate to other people, I honestly can't stand this. While you can't exclude brilliant but ornery people if they contribute, I'd like to flip the problem on its head. Let's say you're brilliant but you haven't bothered to learn the basics of being nice to people, nor do you care to. Acceptance of your work depends on other people. If they don't understand your work, and you're not nice to them, they aren't going to give you the benefit of the doubt and you'll continue to be alone and ignored. Don't get me started on people who decided to be rude because they think it will make them appear more brilliant.
Yeah, large projects aren't really why many of us open source/linux types are into foss. Honestly, most software is bloated these days, bloated in terms of features you'll never use, in terms of screen space, in terms of functionality that already exists in other programs. Why should every piece of software have a search bar, it's own emoji menu, and everything else? Many of us prefer software that does one or a handful of interrelated tasks well, and is extensible/scriptable so as to interface with other software. Like using Dmenu for bookmarks/application launching/cross-application emoji support, search, etc. I just wrote an ms-paint style drawing program without a menu or toolbar, all menu-related tasks such as switching colors are handled with keybinds, and a completely gui-less music player that is started, stopped, and shuffled with keybinds. I like to cut down on the amount of nested menus, and alt-tabbing that has to be done. Making your desktop and the applications you use simpler, more efficient, and less cluttered is easier in an open source ecosystem where you can freely inspect and edit source code and where the documentation is generally better.
Sorry but this take on FOSS is nonsense, there is so much more positive innovation in e.g. my Linux desktop environment in a year than in decades of the Windows desktop.
Considering that many of the programmers he would consider to be good, including himself, worked on open source projects, I don't understand why he would think that open source projects are somehow significantly different to closed source ones quality wise. His idea of how open source contributions should work is of course how it has been working since the beginning. Which again is a weird thing to say for him, since I have a hard time believing that he only discovered open source with github. All of that, combined with his change of opinion on criticism that went along with the shirt change make this a very weird video.
From the perspective of the "owner" of an open source project, I think his opinion is basically, "I don't want to make my projects open source because it's a waste of my time to give feedback on your shitty pull requests. I might as well just write it myself." Which is actually pretty reasonable. It also could be that his opinion on open source comes from his ego. He wants his commits to be automatically approved because he's a 'good programmer,' or something dumb like that.
Good programmers does not equal good code. It's like saying Facebook hires some of the best programmers in the world, so why is their product... Facebook? He's not saying the programmers have a problem.
Open Source is like what RUclips did to the indie film industry, basically divides the middle up, makes the rich and power extremely rich, and makes it so that all these incredibly talented poorer people basically are volunteering and giving away their time and effort for no money at all. Meanwhile, Chat GPT/Open AI basically stole all the Github source code, scrubbed it all, so once again, free stuff leads to monopolization into the hands of the few. I really can't see how people don't see those more obviously, but if you were involved in the indie film industry and what digital did to it, or the music industry, you know, software almost feels like the last stand sometimes due to it's barrier of entry. People are still willing to for example buy a video game, but almost no one wants to pay for a film anymore or music. Google got VERY powerful from allowing at first RUclips to upload all this illegal content, and people jump for joy thinking that 'hey cool free stuff, now I can save money', so it's manipulative to the masses also. Sorry, unpopular opinion, but on so many subjects to be honest I side with the unpopular opinions of Jonathan Blow.
Dude what are you talking about? RUclips has tons of smaller creators who are able to make a living and reach an audience in a way that indie film makers of the past could only dream of. There is also way more independent music now than there was, due to platforms like RUclips & Spotify. One of the big stories in the music industry of the past few years has been record labels losing influence relative to independent musicians who went viral on TikTok.
Open Source just means the source code is available so people aren't so dependent on the publisher. How you manage collaboration on your project, that has nothing to do with it being open source or not.
I love these videos, because they more often than not, dispell the notion of Jon being a genius rather instantly, and it is a good reminder that, none of us have to be geniuses, so you are better off not portraying yourself as one.
@NastyInMuhTaxi Yeah, it's kind of weird going onto social media and seeing bring up over 10 year old news just to kick someones name in the mud. It just feels super petty which makes me worried since a large part of the population doesn't seem to mind indulging in it.
The title is wrong, it should say "Jonathan Blow on a Strawman he put up to try and sound smarter than everyone" Which is like, half of his rants, clearly. He has some good ideas, but he's not some next level coding prodigy slash philosopher he thinks himself to be
@@jcs27 Do you consume dairy? Then you're probably talking about yourself. *Exposure to exogenous estrogen through intake of commercial milk produced from pregnant cows.* _Modern genetically improved dairy cows continue to lactate throughout almost the entire pregnancy. Therefore, recent commercial cow's milk contains large amounts of estrogens and progesterone._ _"The present data on men and children indicate that estrogens in milk were absorbed, and gonadotropin secretion was suppressed, followed by a decrease in testosterone secretion. Sexual maturation of prepubertal children could be affected by the ordinary intake of cow milk."_ DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-200X.2009.02890.x *Hormones and diet: low insulin-like growth factor-I but normal bioavailable androgens in vegan men.* _"Mean serum insulin-like growth factor-I was 9% lower in 233 vegan men than in 226 meat-eaters and 237 vegetarians (P = 0.002)."_ _"Vegans had higher testosterone levels than vegetarians and meat-eaters"_ _"Chan et al (1998) found that men who subsequently developed prostate cancer had 8% higher serum IGF-I concentrations than men who remained healthy, suggesting that the 9% difference we observed is large enough to significantly alter prostate cancer risk."_ DOI: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1152
@@ethicalrevolution3294 I am a Orthodox Christian, I fast during the great lent and other lents, as well as 24h fast without any calories for 24h 2 days a week. On the off days when meat is allowed I usually eat 100% meat and keto. But mostly follow the Orthodox Dietary recommendations according to the Church's Calendar. Which is quite diverse, during the great lent you can become in practice vegan-like, without being spiritually inferior like many vegans and vegetarians are. Whole natural milk is nothing bad, my ancestors used to survive on that, while conquering half the world. And no, I have pretty high test levels, but I don't abuse diary products, as many vegetarians do.
@@jcs27 You have the mark of the beast, unlike vegans. Vegans prove that they follow the law that is written on their hearts, unlike those spiritually inferior who rely on the dead letter of the law. While vegans have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, dementia, and cancer, to name the biggest killers of humans. Seems like they are doing what is correct spiritually and physically.
Agreed. Look at the efficiency metrics in big companies and how the devs spending their time, sometimes weeks, just to get one simple PR to be approved. It's super toxic as well as very inefficient. If you trust your devs, let them do it, if you don't, why the heck you hired the guy in the first place? I'm old enough to remember how we did software development in 90s without this PR drama and how software was still very high quality! Plus, we got more job done with fewer people. Today.. it's crazy.
I wonder what his view is on the subscription model, and accumulating cost of software if subscription lapses. As a user I feel cheated by the fact that I used to be an owner of the tools I buy, and then things changed and now I don't own anything. I just rent for as long as I can afford it.
I agree that a lot of OSS is just a waste of time of mocking a paid product. However making a pr to my Neovim's Mason for a one line fix that fixes a bug I ran into is really powerful. It gives me the power to fix problems I run into.
Why does this person have opinions ow it make me head hurt owww. nah for real tho his take on pull requests is pretty accurate. And git/github is supposed to be this great equalizer for coders, meanwhile newer coders get hazed and shit on all of the time. There totally is a hierarchy and I'm tired of pretending there isn't.
The problem with the idea that "you cant remove being a bad person from a highly productive human because they are entangled" is when the highly productive person overestimates their own value. You must always be a nice person because you might not be as productive or as great as you think you are.
It's often the case where people are success BECAUSE of their disagreeableness. Jon, for example, came out with Braid fighting against many people who wrongfully prejudged the game, and it ended up being very successful for him. There are also many cases where, as you alluded, ones ego leads to their destruction. I tend to agree with you that being a dick isn't something to strive for. Although I also have to say, a healthy dose of disagreeableness can be beneficial. I think the main thing that Jon is flat out wrong about, is that being a dick shouldn't be criticized if the person is good at something. It's 100% reasonable to criticize being a dick, even if the person is wildly talented.
@@elijahbuscho7715 I would posit that while some levels of success are attainable with some level of disagreeableness, that there is a ceiling. To be a truly great success, you must be able to connect with, and influence, large numbers of people. You must be influential and persuasive. You must be liked. Once initial success is attained, being too disagreeable is a barrier to growing your organization. Listen to Lex Fridman's latest interview with Jim Keller. Jim is a legendary leader of technology and he paints a clear picture regarding the balance that must be attained here.
"You must always be a nice person" is the incorrect part of your formulation. There are plenty of scenarios where "always being nice" is the exactly the wrong thing to do.
@@jackmordaunt5410 I am wrong to suggest that you must _always_ be nice. You certainly must prioritize things above being 'nice', but I am stating that you should always strive to be a _nice person_, which is a higher level concept. I strongly hold that Jon is incorrect in his reasoning here. His only ground to stand on here is his success. He fails to accommodate for the legions of assholes who think they are successful enough or ambitious enough to warrant being an asshole. I think his personality doesnt lend itself to emotional intelligence and this line of reasoning is a way for him to posit that as a strength rather than realizing that it is and always will be a weakness. Humans are not RPG characters that have a set amount of skill points, you can be gifted with technological prowess, vision _and_ be a skilled communicator.
@@00jknight There are mutually exclusive traits, that pull away from each other. E.g. agreeableness. There's benefits to being highly agreeable and highly disagreeable. To take a person and flip such a trait would fundamentally destabilize them. They have made a whole stack of choices based on their personality structure. Career, spouse, parenting style, friends, etc. I think the vagueness of the ill-defined "nice" idea is making the language slippery.
@@seriouscat2231 My intent was not a personal attack, but to point out that closed source is objectively worse in every way when it comes to accepting PRs. What do you consider his "valid criticism"?
After the mess with the Linux Kernel and the University of Minnesota, I can definitely see your (Jonathan's) point about having dedicated maintainers who carefully watch over the code so this awful situation doesn't happen again.
with a whole lot of selfish bastards, if everyone handles their black box, and one guy handles the web. then u can get things done even totally selfishly. so black box can organize that.
It does if your delivery guy that brought you your shopping from the supermarket relied on a Satellite Mapping service to find out the route to where you live based on GPS satellites that rely on the triangulation of signals from synchronised atomic clocks that would not be sufficiently accurate if the math did not take into account the relativistic effects of their speedy astral motion. Even if you bought your cheetos in person they may very well have got to the store through another delivery driver relying on a GPS system that would not work without Einstein.
@@____uncompetative No I think the cheetos part was partly a joke. GPS could probably be made to work using some other triangulation mechanism if relativity was not known or understood.
@@hasen_judi It would be a lot less accurate. You could do it without satellites if you had cell phone towers, but full global wildernersess GPS coverage for military applications needs satellites and relativity to be usefully precise.
@@hasen_judi Well, granted _Cheetos_ predates _Sputnik_ by nine years, and even further than the GPS navigation network, so I get where you are coming from, as deliveries from the _Cheetos_ manufacturing plant to local distribution centers, and then from there by small trucks to local supermarkets would have been solved by regular paper based maps, but more recently home delivery services didn't exist before GPS was available and logistically would have been fraught with difficulty without that infrastructural technology. My _Cheetos_ delivery from _TESCO_ could fall back on a paper map, as my address is in a city, but for someone in a more remote area, in a house that had been built since a map was made, I would suppose that would be why they ask for your telephone number, so they can call you on the day of delivery for directions if you are a first time customer of their home delivery service and somewhere neither on the map yet, or unable to have SatNav help the delivery driver out because of a solar flare, or because of equipment failure as they maybe forgot the charge the SatNav, and the map was no help due to thick fog and limited road signage. I can forsee a series of systemic failures that would result in some customers having to go without their home delivery of _Cheetos._
Are you conflating github with git? Pull requests are an entirely 'github' thing that is not a part of git. Git has users who are allowed to push changes and everyone else is not. How is that any different from svn? if anything pull requests are a blurring of the 'class structure', basically a means of the people who are allowed to push changes sometimes uploading work someone made by someone not allowed to push changes.
@@MGMan37 git pretty much did the exact same things as svn, and with pull requests added into the picture (which even services like bit bucket provided), I couldn't work out at the time what we had to gain. (This is going back maybe 5 years ago) Given how pretty much all IDEs have git functions built in now, it made sense to move over, since we didn't have to leave the IDE to commit a change. Git being an offline backup was useful, but our Devs didn't travel so much. We had been a svn house for 15 years or so.
So would he be the one that is putting bad pull requests at the feet of other open source maintainers? I'll take the crotchety old programmer over the bloated "here to fix your personality" dude who hasn't done a thing in their lives any day of the week. Talking about the general is really describing himself, which gives off this "rhyme" of The Joker if you really think about it.
I love how he just states that every personality trait was integral to someone's accomplishments when it's a baseless assumption. He doesn't know that. Michael Jordan might have been just as successful at basketball if he wasn't an asshole. Just because some people are the way they are doesn't mean that's how they have to be.
I disagree - It depends what part of their personality you're talking about. Now I don't know enough about MJ or basketball so I might be completely off base with this example, but let's say he was talking about how your form should be when taking a 3 point shot, and people thought the tone of his suggestion was aggressive and wanted him to calm down. The problem is that some part of his personality and interest in basketball likely motivated him to put in as much work as he did to get good, and if you take that away, yes he would be less angry and still have the capacity to be great, but you risk removing his motivation to fulfill that capacity. I agree with you that doesn't give him license to be an arse to people about unrelated topics, however. Everyone should have good manners.
Don't tell me you haven't had to reinstall or basically revert back when using a Linux distro seriously enough. You may be a Linux brainiac if you hadn't but the stuff that breaks package managers are really sometimes silly and not a developer's fault; not all developers should be sysadmins. Gosh. It is embarrassing that a Linux computer will probably not work if you let it sit in a corner for a year; come back and now the package manager does not work... It is not his fault that Linux sucks.
I have no problem with people flaming each other for bad code. I kind of like Jonathan Blow. He is funny. But sometimes, he needlessly shits on the entire community of software engineers. Saying everybody is bad besides him is provably wrong. And even if it was correct, when people ask him for advice for learning, he makes fun of them. So there is no winning with this guy. Another thing is, its very easy to sit and talk shit about LLVM. Well, go and write an alternative then. Let's see how much better than LLVM you will do. Torvalds talks crap too but he goes and writes stuff. He hated subversion and he wrote GIT as a side project.
Somehow I suspect that Jon doesn’t have data to back up this “great man“ hypothesis. Show me evidence that anger management classes negatively impact work performance. Give me something. Otherwise this just sounds like a lazy rant whining about being held accountable.
Evidence will take decades to manifest at which point it will be too late. Just like the people who said about corona "show me evidence that masks work" or "show me evidence that closing borders will stop the virus spread"
@@hasen_judi Cloth face masks, even before their efficacy was well-studied, were supported by a reasonable theoretical model. So far as I can tell, Jon’s notion is not. It sounds to me a like he’s just getting emotional. It’s not as though anger management therapies have not been studied. One thing you can do is: just check the literature and see if they even address your concern. If they don’t, then maybe it’s fair to conjecture. If you haven’t even checked, it’s a lazy rant.
@@hasen_judi I should also add: Jon’s rant about open source projects was also completely unfounded, as several people have commented. Maybe these rants are based on Jon’s personal experiences, but that doesn’t make them true in general.
I think you are misinterpreting his point. He's not saying that you shouldn't hold a "great man" accountable for what he says; he's just saying that having a person passionate about making something good AND having that same person have their passion under control when someone is threathening good work rarely go hand in hand. Anger management is good but that shouldn't come with the cost of condoning bad engineering
@@hasen_judi that just means his claim is completely unfalsifiable, in wich case it should be taken as seriously as the existence of a small teapot orbiting mars. And you just provided an amazingly dumb analogy, the efficiency of masks was a topic well studied by the medical community from well before 2019 was a thing and so is epidemiology and its methods. You full of crap.
For example, Kobe Bryant was a huge jerk and definitely created some toxic work environment. MJ should be the same to some extend. If you take that away, you wouldn't have Kobe or MJ. Humans are not robots, emotions create drive or vice versa.
We need a "Jonathan Blow on Jonathan Blow" video
he would dislike him
@@sefirotsamaaccurate
He talks in absolutes, but things aren't absolute. Blender? There is both good, mediocre and bad OSS out there.
*When your PR gets rejected*
underrated comment
I find that many smaller (and bigger probably too, but I've never looked at them too closely) open source projects work this way: there's a guy or a small team that made a program, usually for their own use or just for fun, and they share the source because others might find it useful too. Normally, they do most of the development, but sometimes a user adds a feature or fixes a bug, also just for personal use. In that case the user can submit a PR, basically saying "hey, I like your program but I needed it to have X so I added it. It's your project, but if you also think X is useful feel free to use my implementation".
One can just fork the repo and start their own project, sending the original gatekeepers to hell.
@@ifstatementifstatement2704 true, but that means that if there's a change in the main project that breaks your change, you're faced with a dilemma: ignore the new change or resolve the incompatibility. The first means giving up on the new features and fixes, the second is a pain. And maintaining a project is a pain too. Some people just want to contribute as a one-off thing, without it becoming a long-term commitment. But if the contribution is not welcome, well, that's too bad
The fun thing is, the original program does not need to be open sourced to have an open sourced community.
The way he says open source development *should* work is how it *does* work! Pull requests are the exception. Its for "drive-by coding". When you fix a little thing, but have no interest to become an active maintainer. At least in good projects. And in open source there are good and bad projects, just like everywhere else.
"have some kind of mechanism by which you admit trusted people" yeah that's called... contributors, it existed since forever
In about 20 years of contributing to free/open source software have never submitted any substantial amount of code to a project without first discussing the design with the maintainers on a mailing list or in an issue tracker.
If the change is an obvious bug fix that does not change any behavior and/or if the change is small enough that it's just quicker to send a suggestion/prototype as a pull request I'll do that.
As usual Jon have far from the whole picture for anything that isn't game development.
I mean yeah its pretty shocking sometimes how radically he over simplifies something before criticizing it.
Wrong not how 99.9% of github works
I used good opens source programs, John also is using open source libraries in his production games, but it's always makes you feel better when you can criticize things.
"All progress belongs to the unreasonable man, because the reasonable are satisfied with the status quo."
This is what happens if you don't own a good gaming chair, I use arch btw.
but what do you do with it
@@ar_xiv he sits confortable
open source is awesome. his complains are valid issues. but you definitely still want open source.
i tend to not accept pull requests and just let people fork it or copy paste it to add their own features
I'm confused.
In the first part of the video labeled "Pull Requests" he says he finds pull requests "offensive", because he doesn't want to "submit to the judgment" of other people.
But in the second part, "Open source philosophy" he says "It matters if you check in stuff" that is good or bad, and if you "lose that culture of technical judgment of what is good or what is bad", then software is over. It's almost as if he's saying he wants to be the arbiter of what is good or bad, but no one should decide that about his work. Am I understanding this correctly?
Git commits by the team doesn't mean it's an external pull requests by other developers. Maybe that is what he means. But it's very vague indeed. I also use merge requests myself on my own projects.
The video surprised me. It sure began with a nonsensical statement about open source and pull requests (as expected), but then proceeded to deliver a very insightful point about human nature and present day culture and the future of human society
The “trusted people” are the ones that do the pulling. And for a lot of projects your code won’t get a look if you don’t have a reputation.
The biggest flaw of open source, to me, is the mentality that because a popular open source solution exists, everyone should be using it. You mention LLVM. When doing research for my compiler/language most people just said to just write a front-end to LLVM and that I'd be dumb 'reinvent the wheel.' I chose to not listen to them. I'm sure LLVM is fine but I don't want to be tied to their ecosystem, their decisions, and their philosophy. Innovation happens because people reject the current status quo and find better ways to do things that suit their needs.
The inventor of the motor car was, in some sense 're-inventing the horse-drawn carriage'.
Open source is just great, you can learn from other people, you know exactly what the software does and doesn't, and you can also share it with other people and they might help you to improve it.
Open source suffers from bad design or no design. Or people just throwing algorithms and functionality into a pile and calling it design.
I maintain a successful and widely used open source project, and I once dated Nick Cave’s housekeeper. What a time to be alive!
He is unfortunately correct. Collaborative open source is rarely creative and/or well-polished. A great contrary example to follow is Blender, maybe because of its modularity (some guy codes a cool add-on and it gets integrated into a release).
Blender is good because they decided to design it. Not just call the person who throws it together a designer, but to actually design it.
He was unable to install Ubuntu properly.
Torvalds also failed at that
he's not wrong about quality control.
Just a reminder that nautilus was released a final build with broken search that end up on debian stable...
@@edd9581 GNOME devs be like that.
Stallman doesn't even bother installing Gnu/Linux anymore because its such a pain. He just has underlings do it for him.
Jon Blow has a very outspoken opinion on a lot of topics :p
I personally like the idea of pull requests for very large projects.
I've also seen pull request elitism happen in a corporate setting and basically it can completely drain your project/resources/team. After a few months of it management shut it down because they almost got a riot on their hands.
Pull requests are there to be used in a sane, sensible way.
@@things_leftunsaid link?
@@things_leftunsaid lol hackernews
"There is something very negative about submitting to the judgement of people who you believe have very bad taste." (Jonathan Blow)
This video and the comments are a good example of how easy it is for people to misunderstand and talk past each other. This happens because the original context and the target audience are different from the context where the message is interpreted. Short and strong statements assume that the target audience has specific knowledge and opinions, which means that the chance of being misunderstood is low enough.
If you're talking to a target audience that has different knowledge and opinions, you have to carefully qualify all your statements to avoid being misunderstood and stereotyped. It's easy to dismiss valid and nuanced critique if it seems similar to another, more stupid and rude critique. And once you have stereotyped someone as stupid and rude, it's hard to stop. It takes courage and skill to imagine that you are wrong, especially if your incorrect interpretation has strong feelings and seemingly valid data supporting it.
People who are passionate about what they do are very sensitive to mistakes, and they can get very emotional about their opinions, usually because they are supported by painful personal experience. People who have the same passions can have wildly different personal experiences, which means that they have wildly different access to the truth. They still have some shared knowledge and opinions, but they have a different balance of importance and a different understanding of causes and effects. This is why they focus on different things in their critiques, and why they propose different solutions and viewpoints. But because the critiques, solutions and viewpoints are all we see, when we don't understand them or feel threatened by them, we find the easiest way to discredit them and continue thinking that we have a good understanding of the big picture.
The solution is to stop for a moment when someone says something we don't understand or don't agree with, and think about what knowledge and personal experiences the other person might have that we don't, and try to fill that gap by learning more about the person and what they know, while suspending our feelings and first impressions.
This is a man criticising someone for criticising someone else for criticising someone else's code.
That's' pretty deep.
that's recursion for you
I get what Blow is saying and to an extent agree with him. However, people should try to maintain a base level of courtesy in their communication with colleagues. I don't think that's too much to ask for, regardless of personality traits. Needless hostility does not do anyone any good.
I agree but that's a standard that one holds themselves to. The people asking for "nice" seldom ever hold that standard for themselves.
Just as he points out they think it's nice to recognize a rose as a desirable flower then get pissed that it has the audacity to grow thorns to protect itself... Why? Because they want to pluck the rose, enjoying the rose is nice anything that gets in the way of that happening as smoothly as possible is therefore not nice. They don't care that plucking the rose will eventually kill it for the next person who wants to appreciate its beauty. They'd rob the world to save themselves having to deal with a single prick.
That's selfish and I wouldn't recommend anyone allow themselves to be tone-policed by the "nice brigade".
@@ragnarok7976 What would the alternative be then? To completely disregard everything other people think?
There has to be a line somewhere, and that line is one we collectively draw when we as a group decide what our social rules should be. And for rules to be meaningful at all, they have to be policed.
@@Spiderboydk What? No, why would that be your first alternative, or mine for that matter?
Ironically, you have to have more regard for what people are actually saying and put less stock in the way they say it.
There was an experiment done on monkeys where they would have them in a big climbable pen. There was a bunch of bananas hanging at the top. Any monkey who would climb for the banana bunch would be sprayed with a fire hose. It didn't take long before all the other monkeys would shriek bloody murder the moment one of them tried to climb for the bananas.
I don't know the exact moral of that story but I think it goes to show that tone doesn't always match intent and even a chorus of shrieking monkeys might have information about a situation that you don't.
My solution is not to treat it as an all or nothing collective bargain but rather as your own personal standard. I don't really care how people address me I just try to address them as I think people should be addressed. I don't think "what could they do to make this process work better" I only think "what could I do to make this process better" because that's the only half that I'll actually have any control over.
You don't have to take my word for it but I've tried it both ways many, many times. The lecture never works, if they aren't an amicable person they aren't going to accept it and if they are an amicable person they don't need it. Never once has someone I've lectured about tone or cordiality or anything else ever come back and said they were wrong or even sorry.
That said when I tried just following my own standard and stopped letting the way others addressed me impact that standard the more people actually started respecting me, some came back and apologized for their behaviour towards me even though I made no coment on their behaviour at all.
Maybe instead of drawing a collective line we each just draw our own and make sure we keep only ourselves to it, I mean if we can't keep to our own lines how in the hell are we gonna police someone back onto theirs?
I like open source. Some projects do some stuff bad. But Linus torvalds in one of his early talks on git talks about the hierarchy of trust for contributions to the linux kernel and that sounds like the right way to do open source. I think it’s his Google talk
Seems like there's two points being made here, one on PRs and gatekeeping, and then another on descructive criticism. To the point of the first argument I'm not really sure why it's really a problem.
If you PR a feature that you think is good and doesn't get through, can't you just fork the project and cherry-pick the main project's commits from then on? In the worst case you'd still be leveraging other people's contributions while still being able to use your changes. In the best case the community rallies behind your fork and eventually adopts it.
An exception to this might be something like a cryptocurrency where users need an agreed upon standard for it to work in a decentralized manner. But by using the project you're implicitly agreeing to have software that interacts with others by consensus, so that's just something you'd need to accept.
Jon has a lot of interesting ideas, but this seems like a non-issue to me. Is there something I'm not getting?
I totally agree with you.
The problem with open source is that there is no real design and no real vision. Everything is done according to the lowest common denominator and in the most generic manner. If open source really was wonderful the first thing it would be is usable, consistent and discoverable. For example, systemd aka one daemon to rule them all, is a big step into the wrong direction, making everything more obscure and harder to approach. I would have started many projects with Inkscape, but every time I found it equally confusing and never wanted to go back. Same with GIMP. Open source manages to be more complicated, constrained and confusing than it needs to be. And closed source is not a valid excuse. One can spend a lifetime hoping that it would get better, but it's the same thing over and over.
Before I make any pull request and do the work, I would totally ask the owners of the code about what I'm thinking before I go spend my time to do it. This is regardless of "git" or version control or etc.
This is another straw man argument put together in these cuts, using one specific "bad case".
I have contributed to a handful of projects, and taken over smaller abandoned projects. Open source means you fork it if you want. Do what you want with it. If it doesn't make it back to the base repo, oh well. If you're passionate enough about it, maintain your fork and let people know about it. Run your own show.
Aside from that, I completely agree, there are some really toxic people and communities online, regardless of open source, etc. It's a problem on the internet, period, and I totally agree that those people have no place in OSS projects.
It's oss for reason and people can make their own decisions on which projects to contribute will it be good or bad,i don't care
People make random PR's all the time in all sorts of projects all across github
Ehm...what is Jonathan talking about? In OPEN source, you build trust via submitting patches . As you get more trust, you'll get an easier time getting patches in. Simple.
I see a lot of criticism of Jonathan Blow's views on Open Source. Frankly, I'd never heard of him until today, but I'm no noob; I've been in commercial CG software for more than 3 decades. He's absolutely right about Open Source. All of the reasons he's stated is why I've developed a new platform around a completely new product management/development methodology (i.e. different from Agile, Scrum, etc.). Time will tell if my methodology is sound: I'll know by this time next year. Wish me luck.
so, can you tell us more?
Anything new about that methodology? I'm curious.
@@applepie9806 We've run into some technical hiccups along the way, but this thing looks *really* promising. We've discovered that a key to success lies in the clear organization and labeling of the OS's elements. It helps clearly identify what is and isn't effective, and it allows the creator (i.e. user) to gain full understanding of the platform without having to read a lot of docs. As I said, it's promising, but we're still testing..............
@@rafajaw We're behind schedule, unfortunately, but so goes massive software dev. But all I can say is that it's an OS for creators. In addition to creating content, you can even create new languages and language classes within it, an even modify existing languages to your liking. Still in testing, though.........
What code was Casey criticising that triggered the comment at 2:37 ?
I couldn't find the VOD, unfortunately. It was on December 19th 2020, or shortly before. I don't even know whether it was on the stream or on the pre-streams. I had a resilio sync/bitsync link for the prestreams, but I lost it a couple of years ago.
This is like finding some aspects that are bad about open source and then dismissing it without considering the bigger picture.
What a completely idiotic, chaotic, and self-contradictory rant.
First, he starts with the provably false statement that open source doesn't create anything new, and just copies. Lots of counterexamples to this exist: Debian pioneered package managers, which proprietary OS's don't have to this day, LLVM, which he cites himself, was the first project to have its own IR to ease compilation of several languages, while Jetbrains, the company who's leading devtools today is only now finishing migrating their Kotlin compiler to this architecture. Linux also pioneered kernel namespaces, which are the bases for modern virtualization, before its competitors.
I don't know which cave he's been living in, but you don't need to send PRs or have your changes incorporated into the main project, you can fork it and merge upstream changes when a new version comes out. When I started FOSS devlopment more than ten years ago, I was in a project that did this and we just thought it was business as usual, as our focus was different. No friction at all between the projects.
Also, he calls dismissing criticism as anti-engineering when he himself admitted he won't submit PR's because they would be criticized by the main project. Finally, he discusses banning people from his chat who criticize him and compares himself to Einstein, while giving absolutely no reason why his work should be taken as fundamental as Einstein's was. My guess is that he doesn't even know why criticism of relativity was so misguided, and has no idea what he's talking about.
I won't comment on the rest because it's so incoherent that nothing can be taken from it, and he's just embarassing himself, as if working on his own language for eight years and not releasing anything wasn't embarassment enough already.
He also tried phrasing that pull requests are a class structure and the fix for that is ... another class structure? Let's not sugar coat, a trust system is definitely another hierarchy where you have the owners at the top who can decide who they trust. And in fact some projects already operate that way (although they often still accept external commits aka. PRs).
You can't really stop people from making changes because that's why it's FOSS in the first place, if people want it fixed and fix it themselves they might be nice and ask you to add the commits to the main project, or they can just maintain their fork in which case the original project owner no longer has any say (so it's not a forced hierarchy contrary to what he said in the video)
I've worked with a million crotchety people who *thought* they were Einsteins, and used that as an excuse to be rude and tiresome. As a technical person who puts a lot of effort into being considerate to other people, I honestly can't stand this. While you can't exclude brilliant but ornery people if they contribute, I'd like to flip the problem on its head. Let's say you're brilliant but you haven't bothered to learn the basics of being nice to people, nor do you care to. Acceptance of your work depends on other people. If they don't understand your work, and you're not nice to them, they aren't going to give you the benefit of the doubt and you'll continue to be alone and ignored.
Don't get me started on people who decided to be rude because they think it will make them appear more brilliant.
I think its a way for other rude people to cope with not being able to understand basic social situations.
Yeah, large projects aren't really why many of us open source/linux types are into foss. Honestly, most software is bloated these days, bloated in terms of features you'll never use, in terms of screen space, in terms of functionality that already exists in other programs. Why should every piece of software have a search bar, it's own emoji menu, and everything else? Many of us prefer software that does one or a handful of interrelated tasks well, and is extensible/scriptable so as to interface with other software. Like using Dmenu for bookmarks/application launching/cross-application emoji support, search, etc. I just wrote an ms-paint style drawing program without a menu or toolbar, all menu-related tasks such as switching colors are handled with keybinds, and a completely gui-less music player that is started, stopped, and shuffled with keybinds. I like to cut down on the amount of nested menus, and alt-tabbing that has to be done. Making your desktop and the applications you use simpler, more efficient, and less cluttered is easier in an open source ecosystem where you can freely inspect and edit source code and where the documentation is generally better.
Thanks now I have to memorize key bindings for every program I use.
All you did was just shift the bloat.
@@chudchadanstud It'll make you a stronger man. Better the bloat you choose than the bloat you had no say in.
Sorry but this take on FOSS is nonsense, there is so much more positive innovation in e.g. my Linux desktop environment in a year than in decades of the Windows desktop.
Is that a fair comparison? Microsoft isn't known for creativity either
If you are using other than KDE i doubt it
Considering that many of the programmers he would consider to be good, including himself, worked on open source projects, I don't understand why he would think that open source projects are somehow significantly different to closed source ones quality wise.
His idea of how open source contributions should work is of course how it has been working since the beginning. Which again is a weird thing to say for him, since I have a hard time believing that he only discovered open source with github.
All of that, combined with his change of opinion on criticism that went along with the shirt change make this a very weird video.
From the perspective of the "owner" of an open source project, I think his opinion is basically, "I don't want to make my projects open source because it's a waste of my time to give feedback on your shitty pull requests. I might as well just write it myself." Which is actually pretty reasonable.
It also could be that his opinion on open source comes from his ego. He wants his commits to be automatically approved because he's a 'good programmer,' or something dumb like that.
Good programmers does not equal good code. It's like saying Facebook hires some of the best programmers in the world, so why is their product... Facebook?
He's not saying the programmers have a problem.
@@4.0.4 What is the problem then?
Open Source is like what RUclips did to the indie film industry, basically divides the middle up, makes the rich and power extremely rich, and makes it so that all these incredibly talented poorer people basically are volunteering and giving away their time and effort for no money at all. Meanwhile, Chat GPT/Open AI basically stole all the Github source code, scrubbed it all, so once again, free stuff leads to monopolization into the hands of the few. I really can't see how people don't see those more obviously, but if you were involved in the indie film industry and what digital did to it, or the music industry, you know, software almost feels like the last stand sometimes due to it's barrier of entry. People are still willing to for example buy a video game, but almost no one wants to pay for a film anymore or music.
Google got VERY powerful from allowing at first RUclips to upload all this illegal content, and people jump for joy thinking that 'hey cool free stuff, now I can save money', so it's manipulative to the masses also.
Sorry, unpopular opinion, but on so many subjects to be honest I side with the unpopular opinions of Jonathan Blow.
Dude what are you talking about? RUclips has tons of smaller creators who are able to make a living and reach an audience in a way that indie film makers of the past could only dream of. There is also way more independent music now than there was, due to platforms like RUclips & Spotify. One of the big stories in the music industry of the past few years has been record labels losing influence relative to independent musicians who went viral on TikTok.
holy based
Open Source just means the source code is available so people aren't so dependent on the publisher. How you manage collaboration on your project, that has nothing to do with it being open source or not.
I love these videos, because they more often than not, dispell the notion of Jon being a genius rather instantly, and it is a good reminder that, none of us have to be geniuses, so you are better off not portraying yourself as one.
Lol what? He never portrayed himself as one. He’s just passionate about his field.
@NastyInMuhTaxi Yeah, it's kind of weird going onto social media and seeing bring up over 10 year old news just to kick someones name in the mud. It just feels super petty which makes me worried since a large part of the population doesn't seem to mind indulging in it.
@@megasoniczxx There's no immediate downside to virtue signalling. Until society collapses.
@christophe123 Actually, no, you’re just unable to cope with criticism.
The title is wrong, it should say "Jonathan Blow on a Strawman he put up to try and sound smarter than everyone"
Which is like, half of his rants, clearly. He has some good ideas, but he's not some next level coding prodigy slash philosopher he thinks himself to be
clearly a biological male on hrt typed this
@@jcs27 keyed
@@jcs27 Do you consume dairy? Then you're probably talking about yourself.
*Exposure to exogenous estrogen through intake of commercial milk produced from pregnant cows.*
_Modern genetically improved dairy cows continue to lactate throughout almost the entire pregnancy. Therefore, recent commercial cow's milk contains large amounts of estrogens and progesterone._
_"The present data on men and children indicate that estrogens in milk were absorbed, and gonadotropin secretion was suppressed, followed by a decrease in testosterone secretion. Sexual maturation of prepubertal children could be affected by the ordinary intake of cow milk."_
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-200X.2009.02890.x
*Hormones and diet: low insulin-like growth factor-I but normal bioavailable androgens in vegan men.*
_"Mean serum insulin-like growth factor-I was 9% lower in 233 vegan men than in 226 meat-eaters and 237 vegetarians (P = 0.002)."_
_"Vegans had higher testosterone levels than vegetarians and meat-eaters"_
_"Chan et al (1998) found that men who subsequently developed prostate cancer had 8% higher serum IGF-I concentrations than men who remained healthy, suggesting that the 9% difference we observed is large enough to significantly alter prostate cancer risk."_
DOI: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1152
@@ethicalrevolution3294 I am a Orthodox Christian, I fast during the great lent and other lents, as well as 24h fast without any calories for 24h 2 days a week. On the off days when meat is allowed I usually eat 100% meat and keto. But mostly follow the Orthodox Dietary recommendations according to the Church's Calendar. Which is quite diverse, during the great lent you can become in practice vegan-like, without being spiritually inferior like many vegans and vegetarians are.
Whole natural milk is nothing bad, my ancestors used to survive on that, while conquering half the world. And no, I have pretty high test levels, but I don't abuse diary products, as many vegetarians do.
@@jcs27 You have the mark of the beast, unlike vegans. Vegans prove that they follow the law that is written on their hearts, unlike those spiritually inferior who rely on the dead letter of the law. While vegans have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, dementia, and cancer, to name the biggest killers of humans. Seems like they are doing what is correct spiritually and physically.
Fun fact I asked the question at 1:27
Congratulations Lee Cumsock. Have a pat on the head
Agreed. Look at the efficiency metrics in big companies and how the devs spending their time, sometimes weeks, just to get one simple PR to be approved. It's super toxic as well as very inefficient. If you trust your devs, let them do it, if you don't, why the heck you hired the guy in the first place? I'm old enough to remember how we did software development in 90s without this PR drama and how software was still very high quality! Plus, we got more job done with fewer people. Today.. it's crazy.
When Soulja boy rejects your PR.
I wonder what his view is on the subscription model, and accumulating cost of software if subscription lapses. As a user I feel cheated by the fact that I used to be an owner of the tools I buy, and then things changed and now I don't own anything. I just rent for as long as I can afford it.
I agree that a lot of OSS is just a waste of time of mocking a paid product. However making a pr to my Neovim's Mason for a one line fix that fixes a bug I ran into is really powerful. It gives me the power to fix problems I run into.
"critical basket-weaving" holy shit lol
Why are you bashing Blender?
"Revolt of the masses" etc
Why does this person have opinions ow it make me head hurt owww. nah for real tho his take on pull requests is pretty accurate. And git/github is supposed to be this great equalizer for coders, meanwhile newer coders get hazed and shit on all of the time. There totally is a hierarchy and I'm tired of pretending there isn't.
Yea I'm blocked to contribute to some projects somehow. Stupid.
And not because my pull request was bad...
And also not because I was mean
you can always fork it and decide yourself...
sounds good in theory, in practice? not sure... try forking Linux and decide by yourself :)
The problem with the idea that "you cant remove being a bad person from a highly productive human because they are entangled" is when the highly productive person overestimates their own value. You must always be a nice person because you might not be as productive or as great as you think you are.
It's often the case where people are success BECAUSE of their disagreeableness. Jon, for example, came out with Braid fighting against many people who wrongfully prejudged the game, and it ended up being very successful for him. There are also many cases where, as you alluded, ones ego leads to their destruction. I tend to agree with you that being a dick isn't something to strive for. Although I also have to say, a healthy dose of disagreeableness can be beneficial. I think the main thing that Jon is flat out wrong about, is that being a dick shouldn't be criticized if the person is good at something. It's 100% reasonable to criticize being a dick, even if the person is wildly talented.
@@elijahbuscho7715 I would posit that while some levels of success are attainable with some level of disagreeableness, that there is a ceiling. To be a truly great success, you must be able to connect with, and influence, large numbers of people. You must be influential and persuasive. You must be liked. Once initial success is attained, being too disagreeable is a barrier to growing your organization. Listen to Lex Fridman's latest interview with Jim Keller. Jim is a legendary leader of technology and he paints a clear picture regarding the balance that must be attained here.
"You must always be a nice person" is the incorrect part of your formulation.
There are plenty of scenarios where "always being nice" is the exactly the wrong thing to do.
@@jackmordaunt5410 I am wrong to suggest that you must _always_ be nice. You certainly must prioritize things above being 'nice', but I am stating that you should always strive to be a _nice person_, which is a higher level concept. I strongly hold that Jon is incorrect in his reasoning here. His only ground to stand on here is his success. He fails to accommodate for the legions of assholes who think they are successful enough or ambitious enough to warrant being an asshole. I think his personality doesnt lend itself to emotional intelligence and this line of reasoning is a way for him to posit that as a strength rather than realizing that it is and always will be a weakness. Humans are not RPG characters that have a set amount of skill points, you can be gifted with technological prowess, vision _and_ be a skilled communicator.
@@00jknight There are mutually exclusive traits, that pull away from each other. E.g. agreeableness.
There's benefits to being highly agreeable and highly disagreeable.
To take a person and flip such a trait would fundamentally destabilize them. They have made a whole stack of choices based on their personality structure. Career, spouse, parenting style, friends, etc.
I think the vagueness of the ill-defined "nice" idea is making the language slippery.
I agree for the most part, but some people put the being an asshole thing as a badge of honor and ham it up
Linux kernel dev team works like that largely.
It's more like problem with how open source operates now rather than open source itself.
This comment section has only 36 comments, but more salt that I've seen in many weeks.
Hey jblow, you cry that your PR wasn't accepted by an open source project. How many PRs do you have that are accepted by closed source projects?
He made a valid criticism of the process, then you decided to make things personal and belittle him. Now which one of you is more mature?
@@seriouscat2231 My intent was not a personal attack, but to point out that closed source is objectively worse in every way when it comes to accepting PRs. What do you consider his "valid criticism"?
@@brockstanford7608, you're in effect saying that two wrongs make a right? Or that as long as someone else is worse, no critique is valid?
After the mess with the Linux Kernel and the University of Minnesota, I can definitely see your (Jonathan's) point about having dedicated maintainers who carefully watch over the code so this awful situation doesn't happen again.
with a whole lot of selfish bastards, if everyone handles their black box, and one guy handles the web. then u can get things done even totally selfishly. so black box can organize that.
Today I learned Einsteins theory of relativity helps me eat cheetos!
It does if your delivery guy that brought you your shopping from the supermarket relied on a Satellite Mapping service to find out the route to where you live based on GPS satellites that rely on the triangulation of signals from synchronised atomic clocks that would not be sufficiently accurate if the math did not take into account the relativistic effects of their speedy astral motion. Even if you bought your cheetos in person they may very well have got to the store through another delivery driver relying on a GPS system that would not work without Einstein.
@@____uncompetative No I think the cheetos part was partly a joke. GPS could probably be made to work using some other triangulation mechanism if relativity was not known or understood.
@@hasen_judi It would be a lot less accurate. You could do it without satellites if you had cell phone towers, but full global wildernersess GPS coverage for military applications needs satellites and relativity to be usefully precise.
@@____uncompetative but for cheetos delivery ..
@@hasen_judi Well, granted _Cheetos_ predates _Sputnik_ by nine years, and even further than the GPS navigation network, so I get where you are coming from, as deliveries from the _Cheetos_ manufacturing plant to local distribution centers, and then from there by small trucks to local supermarkets would have been solved by regular paper based maps, but more recently home delivery services didn't exist before GPS was available and logistically would have been fraught with difficulty without that infrastructural technology. My _Cheetos_ delivery from _TESCO_ could fall back on a paper map, as my address is in a city, but for someone in a more remote area, in a house that had been built since a map was made, I would suppose that would be why they ask for your telephone number, so they can call you on the day of delivery for directions if you are a first time customer of their home delivery service and somewhere neither on the map yet, or unable to have SatNav help the delivery driver out because of a solar flare, or because of equipment failure as they maybe forgot the charge the SatNav, and the map was no help due to thick fog and limited road signage. I can forsee a series of systemic failures that would result in some customers having to go without their home delivery of _Cheetos._
The whole class structure of git, was part of the reason I never really wanted to move across from svn.
Are you conflating github with git? Pull requests are an entirely 'github' thing that is not a part of git. Git has users who are allowed to push changes and everyone else is not. How is that any different from svn? if anything pull requests are a blurring of the 'class structure', basically a means of the people who are allowed to push changes sometimes uploading work someone made by someone not allowed to push changes.
@@MGMan37 git pretty much did the exact same things as svn, and with pull requests added into the picture (which even services like bit bucket provided), I couldn't work out at the time what we had to gain. (This is going back maybe 5 years ago)
Given how pretty much all IDEs have git functions built in now, it made sense to move over, since we didn't have to leave the IDE to commit a change.
Git being an offline backup was useful, but our Devs didn't travel so much. We had been a svn house for 15 years or so.
The FOSS cope levels in these comments are off the charts.
it’s cause he’s simply proposing that things work the way they already actually work in large projects
He is cleverly trying to use 3rd party figures or metaphorical programmers but dont get fooled by that - he is defending himself in this rant.
So would he be the one that is putting bad pull requests at the feet of other open source maintainers? I'll take the crotchety old programmer over the bloated "here to fix your personality" dude who hasn't done a thing in their lives any day of the week.
Talking about the general is really describing himself, which gives off this "rhyme" of The Joker if you really think about it.
@@SimGunther whaaat? Are you ok, dude?
@@marcossidoruk8033, why talk down to him? Why not just stick to the subject?
2:10 The second case is similar to the argument about a set of monkeys typing a Shakespeare.
Open Source software doesn't work.. except for all the open source projects that work.
Given the wrong people at the wrong times, he has the potential to be a Terence Fletcher type character.
Great video. Jon is spot on as usual
IMO widely used, essential and banal things should be open source.
This guy looks like Dr. No
I love how he just states that every personality trait was integral to someone's accomplishments when it's a baseless assumption. He doesn't know that.
Michael Jordan might have been just as successful at basketball if he wasn't an asshole.
Just because some people are the way they are doesn't mean that's how they have to be.
I disagree - It depends what part of their personality you're talking about. Now I don't know enough about MJ or basketball so I might be completely off base with this example, but let's say he was talking about how your form should be when taking a 3 point shot, and people thought the tone of his suggestion was aggressive and wanted him to calm down.
The problem is that some part of his personality and interest in basketball likely motivated him to put in as much work as he did to get good, and if you take that away, yes he would be less angry and still have the capacity to be great, but you risk removing his motivation to fulfill that capacity.
I agree with you that doesn't give him license to be an arse to people about unrelated topics, however. Everyone should have good manners.
Nice bits of wisdom. Keep'em coming!
literally who
It's amazing how he can have one bad take after another. Also windows has been copying linux for like a decade lmao
I love what you are saying !
Don't tell me you haven't had to reinstall or basically revert back when using a Linux distro seriously enough. You may be a Linux brainiac if you hadn't but the stuff that breaks package managers are really sometimes silly and not a developer's fault; not all developers should be sysadmins. Gosh. It is embarrassing that a Linux computer will probably not work if you let it sit in a corner for a year; come back and now the package manager does not work... It is not his fault that Linux sucks.
4:40 Brilliant people being hard to work with is not a problem. Problem is, average people are using it as an excuse for being a-holes.
I have no problem with people flaming each other for bad code.
I kind of like Jonathan Blow. He is funny.
But sometimes, he needlessly shits on the entire community of software engineers.
Saying everybody is bad besides him is provably wrong.
And even if it was correct, when people ask him for advice for learning, he makes fun of them.
So there is no winning with this guy.
Another thing is, its very easy to sit and talk shit about LLVM.
Well, go and write an alternative then. Let's see how much better than LLVM you will do.
Torvalds talks crap too but he goes and writes stuff. He hated subversion and he wrote GIT as a side project.
Somehow I suspect that Jon doesn’t have data to back up this “great man“ hypothesis. Show me evidence that anger management classes negatively impact work performance. Give me something. Otherwise this just sounds like a lazy rant whining about being held accountable.
Evidence will take decades to manifest at which point it will be too late.
Just like the people who said about corona "show me evidence that masks work" or "show me evidence that closing borders will stop the virus spread"
@@hasen_judi Cloth face masks, even before their efficacy was well-studied, were supported by a reasonable theoretical model. So far as I can tell, Jon’s notion is not. It sounds to me a like he’s just getting emotional.
It’s not as though anger management therapies have not been studied. One thing you can do is: just check the literature and see if they even address your concern. If they don’t, then maybe it’s fair to conjecture. If you haven’t even checked, it’s a lazy rant.
@@hasen_judi I should also add: Jon’s rant about open source projects was also completely unfounded, as several people have commented. Maybe these rants are based on Jon’s personal experiences, but that doesn’t make them true in general.
I think you are misinterpreting his point. He's not saying that you shouldn't hold a "great man" accountable for what he says; he's just saying that having a person passionate about making something good AND having that same person have their passion under control when someone is threathening good work rarely go hand in hand. Anger management is good but that shouldn't come with the cost of condoning bad engineering
@@hasen_judi that just means his claim is completely unfalsifiable, in wich case it should be taken as seriously as the existence of a small teapot orbiting mars.
And you just provided an amazingly dumb analogy, the efficiency of masks was a topic well studied by the medical community from well before 2019 was a thing and so is epidemiology and its methods. You full of crap.
This makes no sense at all. He has no clue what he's talking about. If contributors don't like a PR, they don't merge it. It's simple.
For example, Kobe Bryant was a huge jerk and definitely created some toxic work environment. MJ should be the same to some extend. If you take that away, you wouldn't have Kobe or MJ. Humans are not robots, emotions create drive or vice versa.
Lol, you do not have to tolerate the asshole side of people to benefit from their accomplishments. Jesus Christ.
i disagree
As always he talks out of his backside