Why in the norm to ignore these issues - there by perpetuating them because they face no consequences - rather than pointing them out?
Justine did write openly on the web about their prejudices and never even apologized let alone showed in anyway evolution away from fascist leaning and prejudiced politics
EDIT: That being said, I think it should still be possible to discuss her technical contributions in some form. It's basically the old question as to which extend you can separate the work from the author.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.
What are you arguing here? Should no one use APE? Should people use APE but just feel bad every time they do? Should people use APE but never write about it for fear of aggrandizing the author?
The tech is cool. But the person who made it kicks puppies. You don't care? Well I do.
This makes sense in the case of, for example, a bestselling author who kicks puppies. Purchasing books by this author means you are giving them money, if indirectly, and thus to some degree subsidizing their puppy kicking habit.
That I can determine using APE gives the original author nothing.
In general, I've noticed that people like to kick the people with least power or privilege, which often means women are targeted as they tend to have the least power and privilege.
Oh, a BigTech company is evil, with CO2 demands that will kill the planet, support for genocide, and developing mass surveillance to improve their bottom line? Not a problem! Look at all the cool tech toys they have!
Someone develops cool tech toys but has horrible personal opinions? Keep him around as the Chief GNUissance and invite him to all the conferences because he didn't do anything except express opinions, but pounce on her whenever people mention her toys, because of her opinions.
Did you even read that post of mine that you searched up for some reason? What do you imagine you found there?
And keep who around as cheif gnussance? Doesn't that usually refer to Stallman? Do you think Stallman is the same as either Reiser or Tunney?
And who is pouncing on anyone exacly? No one is doing violence on Tunney, nor advocating it. They just opt out of lionizing her, and for a reason she creates herself.
Why do you seem to be so scandalized at holding someone accountable for their opinions? Did you not know that some opinions are not neutral or harmless? No one cares about her opinion about tea vs coffee.
Personally I don't actually even hate her. She says so many different conflicting things that you can't take anything quite fully seriously, including the worst bits, because 10 minutes earlier on some other site she probably said something opposite, and I frankly agree with about half of it.
But you can't ignore the worst bits either because some things you don't get to say without consequence.
And one thing that IS consistent is that she does it on purpose and explicitly, by her own admission, gets off on making everyone else crazy. Not just gets off on being smarter or righter, but specifically on making someone else upset for no other purpose than to laugh at that.
I've known a hundred people like that. Most were 12-22 year old boys, and at least half of those eventually outgrew that phase, and even those that never did are mostly harmless. So I say she's not evil, she's just a garden variety douchebag.
Someone who explicitly prides herself on violating everyone else's feelings, and who explicitly preaches that everyone else needs to grow a thicker skin, cannot possibly at the same time have any problem with something as insignificant as being called an asshole.
I started my professional career as a C++/Qt developer. There was this code to disallow multiple application instances using named pipes. It used named pipes under both Linux and Windows - just create a named pipe "my-program-pipe" and it was a signal for other starting up instances to communicate to it "please put the main app on top" and close.
On linux it worked like a charm. On Windows it worked like a charm...
...only first time. The code was written to "try create a named pipe and if failed - then it means it exists, so write to it instead and exit". This "try create" operation on windows failed but also removed the original existing pipe, thus allowing the third instance to coexist with the first one.
What I mean - Operating Systems are more than this, you cannot write a truly portable application without knowing them all. And especially those quirks that differ...
There's even a handy table to express syscall compatibility across all of Cosmopolitan's targets - https://justine.lol/cosmopolitan/functions.html
One might extend the goals a bit, and include POSIX, and even then, only works if the set of target systems support POSIX, and finally if the implementation defined semantics happen to agree, and not cause random surprises.
If this is some OOP propaganda then I'm sorry but you got duped and the c++/qt community should act more professionally.
A language can't direct the rest of the universe to ensure that something always works regardless of the environment or context.
But it can avoid adding it's own limitations and be agnostic itself. So c is very portable, even though c on machine A has acces to machine A features and not machine B features.
Libraries and frameworks and standards just help a little for a few common cases but they are just travel power plug adapters, not pprtability.