When was the last time you were threatened (“we’ll will bang on your door and take down your accounts”) by a company like Kik and you defended the principles and values you believed until the end?
I’m quite familiar with both western and eastern traditions, don’t know any better source than Ghazali’s “the alchemy of happiness” about how people make decisions.
It’s kind of ironic to see people being triggered by just the mention of it though — just reflects what your heart tends to reject impulsively. I wish you curiosity.
P.S Here’s the full quote, it entertainingly describes the ignorance here:
“first, they didn't look at the dates of the emails. They don't understand the timeline.
second, they can't relate to standing your ground in a high pressure situation involving threats.
and third, they haven't read Al-Ghazali yet, don't quite understand how (free) people make decisions”
They are citing something which changed their life significantly, and leaving pointers to the same thing if you're interested (or need further explanation).
If getting wisdom from others is not your thing, I can respect that, but low-key insulting them for leaving you pointers for a more enlightened place is rude.
You can instead say "I don't understand why Al-Ghazali relates to this", and that would be completely OK.
The author made an implicit assumption, and you're making the same one, that they're filled with wisdom received straight from al-Ghazali. Firstly, only wankers act like they're wise and their audience isn't. Secondly, they said "haven't read al-Ghazali yet", implying that it's only a matter of time before everyone reads him.
Lastly, it's fine to quote someone but you need to explain how it's relevant to the conversation. The author could have summarised al-Ghazali's idea about free will or whatever and it would have been fine. But he didn't even bother, as if the ideas so basic and well known that it's not even worth doing.
I'm pretty comfortable with the way I've poked fun at the author's pompousness. If you need further explanation it's because you haven't read Chanakya yet.
I'll read Chanakya, but I don't see how he's supposed to appease to your taste and style of writing.
I don't think that you're pompous because you cited somebody I don't know that existed. I'm not a god. People show me things I don't know, I take note of them.
Maybe I won't agree with the direction you show me, but at least I have a new direction to discover.
I don’t see a problem in someone deleting 1, 100 or 1000 repositories and moving on. Neither Open Source nor Free Software makes no promises of indefinite availability of the source code.
Incidentally, HTTP has a status code for this. It’s 410 - Gone.
I mean, they have seen that NPM did ate their hats to bow to a company and they decided to not have it, and they removed their packages. Why the anger?
Yes, they have asked NPM to remove all of their packages. It's on them. NPM didn't do it, but gave a tool to do it themselves.
I deserted GitHub the day Copilot came online. I archived my repositories just because I didn't want broken links on comments and notes I have written god knows where.
I stopped uploading photos to Instagram the day they started doing AI training with my images. I didn't delete them because my partner likes them.
I can delete these repositories, photos, whatever I have online. I have no obligation to anyone. It's same for them. It's their code they developed by themselves. They can delete them, and just don't care what happens next.
Why this freedom bothers you that much?
P.S.: We don't do ad-hominem attacks here. Please refer to guidelines for more information. Thanks for your cooperation.
Please don't, regardless of how annoying someone else is or you feel they are. We ban accounts that abuse the site like this, and as I told you that last time this came up, I don't want to ban you.
Edit: this has unfortunately been a problem for a long time:
Oh, I don't defend them. I'm just another person who's disagreeing with you. The only thing is their and my values align on some aspects, and we both disagree with you on the same issues more or less. I'm not here to defend anyone.
When I was writing these replies, there were no flagged comments, and if there were, I can see them, if I want. That's an option you can change. I'm sure you know this better than me. You're here since 2014, and I'm here since 2017. Our comment histories are open. You can check whether I'm a sockpuppet or not.
The MIT license doesn't tell anything about availability of the source. In fact, MIT licensed software doesn't have to be Open Source at all. I can get the source, modify, compile and distribute the binaries without the source code attached, and no one can compel me about opening the source code. That's a requirement set forth by GPL family, and even these say that source should be available for a reasonable amount of time, not indefinitely, and certainly not online. IOW, I can sell GPL software, without putting its source code online. The only obligation is to provide the source to the people who have gotten the software (i.e.: How RedHat operates).
My only example was not my Instagram photos. I have also talked about my GitHub repositories (which I am not deleting because of my personal reasons), and again, I'm not here to defend them. To reiterate, I'm a completely different human being who happens to disagree with you.
HN's no delete policy was there since I joined, and I agreed to this when I started participating here. If they do something which is against my values, I'll leave this place, too (like I left Reddit back in the day). I'm not afraid to put my values first. In fact, this is why I have replied to you this much. I'm putting forward my perspective and values, which is not defending someone. I'm a lone person, walking my own way.
Your prejudice and anger is blocking your view. Currently three comments of you are also flagged.
It's enough that you're reflecting your beliefs and prejudices to other people in the form of low-key insults. Also your tea is going cold. It's not polite to not aceept a friendship drink offered in good faith.
This is my last reply on this comment thread, because this is a new day, and I have to handle other matters, too. Without any hard feelings, I wish you the best of luck, and have a nice day.
You broke the site guidelines repeatedly and badly in this thread. Please don't do that, regardless of how wrong or annoying someone is or you feel they are. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Also, it unfortunately isn't the first time you've done this (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42565389), although it seems to be the first time you jumped into a full-blown flamewar. Please don't do it again. We have to ban users that abuse the site like this, and I don't want to ban you.
Let's consider an example about a tangible phenomena: Gaussian Integration, Quantum Entanglement, Crystalline Structure Formation in Alloyed Metals with Heat Treatment, Combustion Dynamics in a Gasoline Engine, etc.
Let's put the same sentence:
"I'd love to explain to you, but if you haven't read $SOURCE_MATERIAL, you wouldn't understand it anyway".
i haven't read it, now i'm interested in it, and frankly you sound like much more of a "wanker" at the end of things for centering your own (lack of) experience in this discussion.
Given that this post is meant to explain your perspective at the time, I think it would make sense to explain it at least a little. At the very least, I am curious. What does Al-Ghazali have to say about making decisions that influenced you? I have not read Al-Ghazali yet.
Yes, when theres's no impulse strong enough to outweigh reasoning. You don't need Ghazali for this, Kant also explains it. Before suggesting that I rephrase things, I think you should explore the domain first.
That’s beside the point. It’s perfectly valid to draw inspiration from Kant or Al-Ghazali for your decision-making framework, but neither explains how people actually make decisions in general-their work is fundamentally normative. By the way, I'd be surprised if a true Kantian would have arrived at the same decision as you.
When this happened, people started making assumptions. A few of them:
1. I’m irrational
2. I’m angry
3. I’m greedy
They came to one of these conclusions, based on how they see themselves in the same position.
I can be of course one of these three in some other situations, but in the left pad incident, I done all purely with my heart, to stick to my values and principles which was behind my motivation to do open source for such a long time.
Ghazali is the best source I’m aware of about how to put heart in the driver seat of life, and without fighting but using logic, greed, anger etc as tools.
If my reference made curious about him, I couldn’t be more happy. Here’s a great lecture about his book, The Alchemy of Happiness: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zBwWc0DflRQ
Hey - thank you for your interesting post today. It set me off on a personal journey which, in my mind, involved the discovery of many secret trails and camping spots, metaphorically ..
One thing I have learned about al-Ghazali today, thanks to your efforts, is that philosophers aren't always right, faith and logic can work together, and doubting everything can lead to truth.
But, most importantly, live ones faith honestly - and this is especially true for those of us who detest imperialist/corporate interference in spiritual activities, such as publishing packages to the npm ecosystem intended to make ones fellow human beings lives' more rewarding, in spite of the lack of personal rewards to be gained in doing so.. that the value in seeing this is lost on a lot of HN responses in this thread so far, is no big surprise - but it is surely disappointing.
I hope you will consider adding Aquinus and Augustine of Hippo to your references, also. Sometimes it helps to see how the universality of true philosophy crosses cultural divides.
