If you are buying and selling real estate in a functioning jurisdiction, hiding your identity by making the payment opaque is not going to do much for you.
There are title deeds and tax rolls. In many jurisdictions you have obligations like building codes that need to be inspected and an owner needs to be held to account. If you need privacy, you have to set up shell companies to act as the legal owner, not hide the payment from your bank or government.
Speaking of showing the source of the money, if you bought my house from me with bitcoin, I would have to speak to a lawyer about not running afoul of money-laundering regulations. And no, I won’t take the internet’s word for it that somehow, those laws only pertain to fiat currency.
Something tells me that the cost of fighting my government in court would far exceed the value of my home regardless of whether I was technically in the right not to fill out all those same forms.
Consider this a specification for a date range defining when his account will be restored. Now we can parse the statement as follows:
1. Indefinitely: The date range has no end.
2. And for at least two weeks: The beginning of the date range is at least two weeks away.
From this, I conclude that Mr. Trump's account will be muted for at least two weeks, and thereafter it could be un-muted at any time, but possibly the heat death of the universe may make the whole thing moot at some point.
Why did the investors allow the founders to take cash off the table? To align interests. Meaning, to swing for the fences instead of making safe, conservative decisions and building a lifestyle business that would minimize the chance of shutting down.
With the money off the table, the founders would have the freedom to try risky things, to manage the company such that the chance of failure was very high but the payoff for an unlikely success would be even higher.
The company shutting down is exactly the outcome everyone expects to be a likely outcome. The investor has a portfolio of such investments, and does not care that the founders cashed in. The one hit they get will pay for all the founders they pay out.
In fact, investors won't want to blacklist these founders. The message that would send is, "even if you get to take money off the table, you should still manage conservatively, because you will be screwed for life if you have to shut your company down."
Investors do not want founders to be terrified of shutting down.
> It's also a kick in the gut to efforts to fix the shortcomings of ECMAScript like ES6 [1].
irony alert: Brendan Eich has said publicly that CoffeeScript was the impetus for several of the features that made it into ES-6, like fat arrows.
Without CoffeeScript, lots of people wouldn’t have known that they wanted some of the things that are in ES-6.
As it is, you don’t need CoffeeScript to develop for Atom. Which is part of the beauty of CoffeeScript. It’s interoperable with what you’re doing today.
irony alert: Brendan Eich has said publicly that CoffeeScript was the impetus for several of the features that made it into ES-6, like fat arrows.
ES6 is a real specification supported by JavaScript engines.
As it is, you don’t need CoffeeScript to develop for Atom. Which is part of the beauty of CoffeeScript. It’s interoperable with what you’re doing today.
The core of the Open Source project is in CoffeeScript.
Let's say the community had their way, and Atom was rewritten in JS well.
There's still a JS/V8/Chrome for a dependency. On an application where we're rendering huge walls of text - we forgo native redraw. Crucial to response time.
It's fun and time-saving for core developers to forgo the grueling work of portable, native, fast code.
> The thing that turned me away from Atom and its' development is CoffeeScript.
...
> There's still a JS/V8/Chrome for a dependency. On an application where we're rendering huge walls of text - we forgo native redraw. Crucial to response time.
> What makes Atom a viable choice when there already is free, open source, native, cross-platform editors with great plugin ecosystems?
I guess maybe CoffeeScript isn't what turned you away?
As a node developer, seeing any official, open source package in CoffeeScript is a red flag.
The sibling I made a link to a thread about CS in Atom. The creator of express.js has his take:
"Hell I had to rewrite a coffeescript driver this week because I can't have our company relying on things written by people who are unfamiliar with javascript, throwing strings, super awkward apis, lots of indirection, and stepping through the compiled source is a nightmare. It's not like I didn't want to contribute, I even tried for a while, but it's just not worth the hell, it was quicker to just rewrite the thing. Not to say all coffeescript libraries are written poorly, but regardless you're really not gaining much, just losing a lot." [1]
If you write an open source application in CoffeeScript, you're not doing the community a favor, you're doing yourself a favor. They pay the penalty.
FWIW, that same creator created Jade and Stylus which are pythonic like CoffeeScript. What's wrong with HTML and CSS? I could never take his stance against CoffeeScript seriously.
I can't speak for him. I've had fellow programmers love CoffeeScript for their own personal / client projects - but they conceded that for the real deal - a public open source project should stay in JS. Otherwise, it'd scare off swaths of top tier JS coders from contributing. Atom serves as an example of this practice [1].
The smell CoffeeScript in core gives off to them - while I don't subscribe to this - is that "it's an amateur job, don't bother". You don't write open, core code in an abstracted language. That's so suspect. Personal / internal projects are OK, a few I save CS specifically for those situations.
If you look at the source of Express.js, you can see the javascript has it's own aesthetics to it. You can think of express/connect as serving exemplary of node.js code, for now.
On a topic of the CoffeeScript creator, Jeremy Ashkenas also created Backbone and Underscore. These are pretty much examples of top tier JS in the browser. The projects are known for their annotated source:
You can't output this kind of code with CoffeeScript. You have to let in sink in and understand the patterns (the way .extend works in underscore and how Backbone builds upon the idea to add it to objects.)
Whenever I ready “Sorry to ____, but...” I wonder to myself:
1. Is the speaker truly appalled at saying the thing that follows, but it's a radical, earth-shattering insight will cut through the Gordian Knot, e.g. “I’m really sorry to question the Bible, but maybe the Earth actually is older than 6,000 years?”
Or:
2. Someone’s warning detection is working, but the connection to the brake has been severed, and the speaker wants to charge ahead and say it without any real concern for tone.
If what follows the disclaimer needs to be said, just say it. If you get backlash, deal with it. The faux-pology up front undermines your sincerity rather than reinforcing it.
The 'sorry' part referred to my comment sticking out like a sore thumb. Every other comment goes on about racism, etc - while I see a problem inherent in the subset of individuals themselves.
It's a social thing - to prepare the reader for what may strike them as an unpleasant (yet I believe is true) perspective.
> It's a social thing - to prepare the reader for what may strike them as an unpleasant (yet I believe is true) perspective
I’m perfectly aware of what this is supposed to do on the surface, but I am sharing with you that there is a discrepancy between what you claim to be doing and how at least one person perceives what you are actually doing.
You may think that you’re preparing the reader for an unpleasant truth, but note that if what you were about to say was inarguably true, you could just say it and present the evidence. You yourself admit that it’s just a perspective, another way to say that it’s an opinion.
So by prefacing your perspective with a disclaimer that you know in advance that you are going to present an unpleasant perspective, what you’re saying is that you are going to be unpleasant, you know you are going to be unpleasant, and you know that this isn’t an uncomfortable but incontrovertible truth like the Bible not being literally true.
So what it comes down to is this: Instead of just giving an unpleasant perspective, you have given an unpleasant perspective AND told everyone that you know it’s unpleasant, know that it isn’t and incontrovertible truth, and are telling everyone any ways.
This drags yourself into the discussion. Instead of just thinking about your perspective, we are also asked to think about the fact that the perspective is unpleasant, why it is unpleasant, why you choose to share an unpleasant perspective, why you announce it to us, and so forth.
People might, for example, think that you say such things purely because you enjoy being controversial. Is that true? I don’t know! But when you tell me that you are bing controversial on top of actually being controversial, it’s certainly a reasonable thing to wonder.
Which is why I go back to what I suggested to you: If your perspective is worth sharing, just share it. Leave out the preparation. Don’t derail your point by inviting speculation as to why you’re sharing an unpleasant perspective if you know in advance its unpleasant.
I hope you understand that I’m trying to help you share your ideas--whether I agree with them or not--in the best possible and most constructive manner.
My take is that it's a polite thing to do. Like when a doctor says 'Sorry, this might sting a bit' before they do something. The doctor is not sorry - they're simply acknowledging that they are about to do something unpleasant because they are being polite.
So is this.
I feel that majority of people commenting are afraid to face the truth because they think acknowledging it makes them racist. Well that's what make me say 'Sorry' - as verbalizing it pierces their self-created bubble in which certain thoughts are considered crimethink.
Do you carry that axe and a grindstone everywhere?
(A more neutral way to share your concern might be “I would also like to see some transparency around TOS takedowns, and not just takedowns instigated by third parties.”)
I would request you to refrain from personal attacks.
I don't know if it was a ToS takedown at all. Look at what the page[1] says -- "Access to this repository has been disabled by GitHub staff. Contact support to restore access to this repository." Geek Feminism's wiki [2] says "Misogynist C Plus Equality satire project announced and repositories were created on GitHub and BitBucket, with commits impersonating various geek feminists. GitHub removed it quickly." without mentioning a reason.
A metaphorical suggestion that you have an axe to grind is a description of your behaviour, not a criticism of you as a person.
You obviously dragged your baggage into this discussion. It’s your baggage, drag it everywhere you like, but do not be surprised if you get called for ranting about feminist conspiracies in tech in a discussion that is not about feminism.
Sure, GitHub has taken some repos offline. Fine and good to suggest that it would be helpful for them to report on these things, in this or another report.
Excellent to bring up an example that matters to you personally. You’re invested in it, you feel strongly about it.
But the moment you started to talk about tech culture as a whole and some bias the industry may have with respect to feminism, you left the subject matter behind.
Since Andrea Dworkin died in 2005, I'm not sure how she could have a github account today, so the "impersonation" claim might be a little thin. I think it would be akin to creating a github user called "ErwinRommel" or something -- referencing a well known person who isn't around any more.
There are title deeds and tax rolls. In many jurisdictions you have obligations like building codes that need to be inspected and an owner needs to be held to account. If you need privacy, you have to set up shell companies to act as the legal owner, not hide the payment from your bank or government.
Speaking of showing the source of the money, if you bought my house from me with bitcoin, I would have to speak to a lawyer about not running afoul of money-laundering regulations. And no, I won’t take the internet’s word for it that somehow, those laws only pertain to fiat currency.
Something tells me that the cost of fighting my government in court would far exceed the value of my home regardless of whether I was technically in the right not to fill out all those same forms.