Sigh..

I RUN a hiking group here in Australia. And the sole purpose of this question is to promote toxic men and women to start toxic discussions. I've never seen it posted outside of Reddit/lemmy in hiking communities, and the only real life discussion I had about it, was by a female hiker who messaged me about it once, and called it stupid.. I agreed..

The vast majority of people who join my group (even overnight solo with me), are women (and no, I'm not a bear). In fact, I'm probably as average as they get (straight, white, not particularly tall or short, no tatts, etc)..

Whenever the question of safety comes up in hiking groups, and anyone says "women need to bring a weapon, and keep it under your pillow, trying to make them feel insecure, the entire female and male community tends to completely blast them for doing so. Such threads are always full of primarily women re-affirming others that they are safe and push them to give things a go. Based on that, I don't think many women from the aussie female hiking community would agree...

So, things might be different in America, but here in Australia, it's not true. And I regularly speak to a few women who run their own groups, and whilst I can't speak on behalf of any of them, I suspect at least some of them would hate this discussion, as they are interested in encouraging women to hike, be active and be their best self. This question is designed as a weird hypothetical instead.

I'd even argue, the question likely wasn't posted by someone who actually hikes much either. More likely it was posted by someone who wants to argue with others, or having a bad week (possibly some weird 4Chan troll even).

The whole point of these is basically to cause people to fight, just like the original question

Only in public apparently

Including where op called someone a dickwad? That's not normal behavior, and I get the impression based on a few responses here, that op probably doesn't treat people around them that great either

No, I don't think in retaliation. I meant the conspiracy that it's getting downvoted simply because it's a vegan post. I can't speak for others, but i think op isn't being upfront

Again, I've seen lots of red flags including the "irritable" comment. What does that mean? It doesn't mean they acted respectfully.

The fact op immediately thinks they're being downvoted too simply because they're vegan also probably doesn't win people over. It also doesn't help they're attacking non vegan people too.

I think op would get a lot of upvotes, if they stopped abusing people and acted more respectfully towards people.

If you read ops responses, they're being abusive to people. That's why I'm down voting op.

I don't think there is a conspiracy honestly. OP's just treating a lot of people badly, and it's not normal to be calling people dickwads or whatever.

They even write in their post they were irritable, which suggests they were possibly treating the staff poorly too

You literally said you were irritable. Now you're abusing people here too? I don't see anything that warrants being called a dickwad based on the info you provided.

And honestly, first impressions based on your responses isn't great... In fact, you sound like the kind of person who is abusive normally.

I'd suggest maybe try treating the staff there with respect, and perhaps they'll do the same

She can buy the art off the artist or the NGA if she really wants it gone.

I'd argue there is no better way to let the world know what kind of person you are if you're complaining about this though rather than laughing it off

Actually.. Just noticed one talking shit about EV's who works for Land rover.

But yeah, I've realised the same people talking shit about EV's, tend to be the same people causing issues for everyone.. They always have a locked profile (because they troll that much), they're often anti-vax/anti-science and they're the kind of toxic a-holes who were buttheads in high school, and continue to be.

I guarantee they also stocked meat and toilet paper during the pandemic, and tend to leave trash when 4wd'ing

Here in Australia I busted someone with a locked Facebook profile who apparently worked at a ford reseller lying about Kias EV9.

He did the whole laugh emoji and called me a stalker, but deleted his message a few minutes later (probably got a call from his employer who I tagged who was probably worried about the legal repercussions). I pointed out it was libel to lie like that

Here in Australia, post code is also common

Honestly.. That's a fairly harsh response to someone with an opinion...

I kind of feel they don't deserve that attack.. It doesn't mean they have any plans to buy it.

I wouldn't, and I'm actually selling my ps5 and set up my old PC with steam and big picture mode.. But, pointing out the disadvantages in a normal way is more effective than attacking people

Where did you get 10-20 years? I spend thousands on fuel for my jeep each year.

And maintenance is lower on an EV. They're far more reliable

That being said, I plan to buy second hand too

This was one of those toxic questions designed to cause people to argue. That's really its ONLY purpose. It really only has 2 answers, and both can be interpreted as toxic.

My 2 cents though, here in Australia, you'll occasionally get a question about staying safe when hiking as women.

You'll have a huge majority of women saying its safe to hike in Australia, and then 1 or 2 women encouraging women to bring knives or weapons. The ones who claim this then get a huge negative response by both women and guys pointing out it makes things more dangerous for everyone and that nobody needs them.

As a male guide also, I've actually found it difficult to find other guys to hike with, but it is incredibly trivial for me to find women to join me (in fact, doing one this upcoming weekend).

So, interpret that as you will, but, honestly, the people who are incredibly invested in either of these answers, in my opinion, nobody would want to hike with regardless (bears, other women or men), so the answer doesn't affect them.

That's not possible. The keyboard warriors were telling us that solar makes the grid unstable 5 years ago. And they obviously know what they are talking about

Maybe someone should go fetch them from their current anti-EV rants to educate us why solar is bad /s

I don’t know how GitLab would make anyone terribly unproductive. I see many FOSS projects or even entire (proprietary) software companies choosing GitLab for source code management. In fact, the company I work at (a government contractor) uses GitLab, as well as many other FOSS tools. And it’s definitely not a FOSS company, our main customers are the police and military.

The switch process will be terribly unproductive. Also, even the process of discussing the change is a nightmare. Don't forget all the backend stuff that needs to change too from all downstream. It's not as easy as using the API and tools to copy the repo in this case.. Everyone from Fedora to Zedora is affected on their side because the upstream address will change

Sure, but their first choice for a data source is GitHub. For other platforms, they would need to develop and maintain an indexer/crawler (which you can block), which costs time and thus money. Just think about it, why would you upload my code to a platform, when you know that the owner of that platform actually hates FOSS and only wants to profit from it?

Microsoft actually contributes a lot to open source.. Why would they need an indexer / crawler? They already index everything using bing.. Then they just need a git pull.

What has Microsoft recently contributed to the FOSS community? I mean truly contributed. Why should a FOSS project use their proprietary products when other free (both as in price and as in freedom) alternatives exist?

Because they work.. Switching platforms offers no real benefits in any way, and Github is free for open source projects.

Dumb argument. The code editor/IDE is a personal choice of each developer. The software forge isn’t. I really doubt that anyone at OpenSSL is using VSCode (a bloated JavaScript mess) for C development. But if you need to use it, there’s VSCodium which is completely open source and removes the Microsoft tracking.

Yeah.. Sure.. Every developer I know these days except one uses VSCode. And we took him off the main team in our company because he was taking too long to do things (because we are all using copilot).

What exactly do you think Microsoft is tracking? Do you think they're peeking on developer webcams? Nope.. https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/getstarted/telemetry . Crash reports are normal.. Its all GDPR anyway. I don't care if Microsoft knows what language I'm developing on

So is GitLab

Cool.. I'll just leave this here: https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/05/0-click-gitlab-hijacking-flaw-under-active-exploit-with-thousands-still-unpatched/

People should use what they want. It's actually bad for the community when people who contribute nothing try to project manage projects they have nothing to do with. It's their decision.. If you don't like it, fork OpenSSL to Gitlab and do your own thing.. Trust me, you'll notice that choosing Github vs Gitlab doesn't affect project success.

Again, the productivity is what matters. You dont think they could train copilot if it's hosted on a remote git repo?

Also, are you going to do the self hosting for them? It uses a lot of resources and time to self host. Again, nobody knows this better than us.

Also, what have you contributed to openssl lately? Resources? Money?

Switching hosting isn't a two second job either. There is a serious hit to productivity during migration for everyone, including distros.

Are they allowed to use vs code to develop too? Or do they need to change?

Nothing helps open source succeed better than productivity. Also, if they can train copilot with open ssl, good luck. Apparently the code is difficult

Also, there is always the possibility some of these smaller ones go bankrupt. GitHub is highly unlikely to

What bugs? Be specific..

Also, I can't remember the last time Github has been offline for me (in the last 3.5 years of using it at work)

Those are fairly weak arguments honestly, none which have anything to do with the features on GitHub itself. In fact, this could have been written by someone who has no development or project management knowledge

Open source projects also don't pay for GitHub.

Here's one counterargument. One of our projects failed because we wasted so much time arguing about the hosting that we didn't get much done. We moved between a few different services and wasted time comparing shortcomings between them.

In practice, migration from GitHub is actually super easy if you ever wanted to because they literally have an API for everything. It also is a really comprehensive service, and a lot of the open source ones are missing things

Im not a fan of Microsoft, but GitHub works really well and you can rely on it to be fully reliable (there have been few outages)

Not really. On Lemmy, it seems to just refer to anything these days

And that includes theoretical predictions for things that never happened yet

So?

Again, this is one of those cases where people who have nothing to do with a project are trying to be the backseat driver manage it.

There is absolutely no additional risk here.

Again, I've said this so many times. I've seen so many projects fail because they're gotten caught up in the port politics of hosting infrastructure

What matters is the output, not the hosting