I have to say I’m not terribly big fan of videos with a title that is opposite of the message. It feels cheap. “Don’t do X unless you want [long list of benefits of doing X]”. Why do we need this?

A few years ago many countries were marketing themselves with “Don’t go to [country name]”, and it was cringe already then.

Edit: I actually didn’t have any patience to watch the video initially, apart from skimming here and there, so I missed the fact that the speaker hasn’t seen the slides beforehand and it’s some kind of a joke presentation. Would have been nice to see it in the title or video description.

I see, this could be a concern regarding the moderation policy of Lemmy.ml. However, if there is some unhinged upfuckery, unlike in the case of Reddit, we don’t have to migrate to a completely new service, just to another instance.

Certainly that’s a fair concern, but we had shitty moderation in Reddit too. Whatever Lemmy grows into is largely up to us users.

Having made the transition a few days ago myself, I hesitate to call it the smart part of Reddit. However, I tend to believe the early adopter crowd and the ones who can figure out Lemmy (My gosh, so difficult! The UX is not exactly the same as Reddit!) are somewhat more interesting than the people who would just accept the upfuckery of Reddit and stay there.

Link to the said essays, so it’s clear what we’re dealing with here: https://github.com/dessalines/essays

Ok, so the guy likes his communism. I do find it weird (and a bit stupid), but he can’t control the instances he hasn’t started, and doesn’t directly benefit from them. So it’s very hard to see the problem here.

Where’s the actual questionable content? All I could find was a Mastodon thread claiming the devs have shitty opinions without any links to any actual people raising these opinions. The best I can do is guess they are referring to lemmygrad, which indeed looks like a brain dead shit hole of insanity, but how does that relate to the developers again? A bit more clear-cut presentation would be greatly beneficial, as this level of discussion is FUD as best.

I actually deleted my original comment, because I thought it didn’t contribute too much in the discussion. I restored it, as you went through the trouble to write such a long and thoughtful reply.

I see where you’re coming from, and I believe it’s a fair concern. My thinking is more along the line that if I’m ever to write Rust for a paid gig, it has to be widely adapted and the ecosystem has to be mature (at the moment most jobs using Rust where I live are some sort of web3/crypto shops, and I’m not interested in those). I don’t think that will happen any time soon without endorsement and sponsorship by the major corporations.

I have some experience working in the .NET ecosystem, and it’s not all that bad. One of the few Microsoft products I don’t hate.

I doubt the corporate sponsorship has anything to do with the recent drama in the dev team. I also think it’s a very good sign big companies are sponsoring Rust, as it shows they believe in its potential and help its adoption.

Absolutely. Unfortunately it says something about the leadership and the team that such a minor mess-up spirals into this massive internet drama, and that erodes my trust that the language can be correctly managed in the future. Luckily, Rust was already adopted to the Linux and Windows kernels, so it has major momentum. Also, fortunately bad culture can be fixed easier than bad technical decisions.

Rust is a really cool language, but all this drama has been very off-putting. I sincerely hope the team gets their shit together and learns from this.