[HN Gopher] The SQLite Code of Ethics
___________________________________________________________________
The SQLite Code of Ethics
Author : zaksingh
Score : 172 points
Date : 2022-06-26 18:44 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sqlite.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (sqlite.org)
| gorgoiler wrote:
| Lots of Christian theology can get bogged down in the Trinity,
| what the Holy Ghost part means, etc.
|
| There are also much more basic sects where the theology of the
| Gospel is considerably easier to preach, and where in particular
| the idea of God simply being _other people, and our love for each
| other_ is prevalent. It is surprising to see this kind of
| Christianity here, in a piece of software. Surprising and
| uplifting.
|
| It is all quite an Anglican perspective. I feel sorry for people
| who don't have better access to Anglican Communion /
| Episcopalianism. The more deeply theological sects don't hold a
| candle to it.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| I forget who said it but I vaguely remember hearing an Anglican
| clergyman quoted as saying something like "Anglicans don't do
| theology" with the implication that Anglicanism is for people
| not gods.
|
| In fact the few priests, both Anglican and Roman, who I have
| encountered have all been practical people more concerned with
| people and their mundane problems than religion or theology.
| jmull wrote:
| > 54. Speak no useless words or words that move to laughter. >
| 55. Do not love much or boisterous laughter.
|
| I'm out. ROLLBACK TRANSACTION;
| pdenton wrote:
| Why is it a list and not a table?
|
| Seems like a pretty simple case of CREATE TABLE ethics ( id INT
| PRIMARY KEY, rule TEXT );
| why-el wrote:
| What happens during downtime for maintenance?
| kingofpandora wrote:
| You say 10 hail Marys and 5 our Fathers.
| hrgiger wrote:
| Its mean you failed to spread the love horizontally
| [deleted]
| terrib1e wrote:
| Madness
| claytongulick wrote:
| When viewing this through the lens of "God is a proxy symbol for
| the first order derivative of your society" these rules make a
| lot of sense.
|
| If you re-read this with that interpretation, it's pretty amazing
| stuff.
| gigatexal wrote:
| What if a dev wanted to work on the project and was a devout
| devil worshiper or an atheist wine bibber...
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| They merely have to provide contributions that live up to the
| technical standard of SQLite (good luck) and dedicate them to
| the public domain. Their religion or lack of is not a problem.
| thunderbong wrote:
| In this world of bits and bytes, a lot of early principles set by
| the founders get compromised as time goes on. We, as developers,
| tend to take these as "that's just the way it is", and move on.
|
| Sure, some of us, try. Root our phones, host our own emails. But
| really, isn't being a good human underlying all that goes above
| it?
|
| I'm not a Christian. I'm not even religious. IMHO though, if any
| software that I've ever written or would write in future, would
| help others realize that in the big picture, a belief and faith
| in humanity is the most important thing above all else, I would
| consider myself privileged.
| adamrezich wrote:
| previously:
|
| "SQLite: Code of Ethics"
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26547201 (March 22, 2021 --
| 37 points, 23 comments)
|
| "SQLite updated Code of Conduct"
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18313131 (October 26, 2018
| -- 41 points, 89 comments)
|
| "SQLite: Code of Ethics"
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18297514 (October 24, 2018
| -- 34 points, 19 comments)
|
| "SQLite: Code of Conduct"
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18273530 (October 22, 2018
| -- 338 points, 288 comments [flagged])
|
| "SQLite: Code of Conduct"
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18273390 (October 22, 2018
| -- 157 points, 60 comments)
| bowsamic wrote:
| Wow, we often complain that HN has degraded, but the comments
| on that bottom link are very low quality
| imwillofficial wrote:
| I love this, doubling down on personal beliefs in face of
| opposition
| no_butterscotch wrote:
| The fact that repositories even have "codes of conduct" is
| Orwellian on one hand and a sign of idiocracy on the other.
| kragen wrote:
| Yeah, my commentary on this nonsense is at https://gitlab.com/k
| ragen/bubbleos/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDU....
|
| > _Could J. K. Rowling require Harry Potter readers to follow a
| code of conduct? Could Werner Heisenberg demand that you
| subscribe to a code of conduct if you want to do quantum
| physics?_
|
| ...
|
| > _Codes of conduct typically make laudable promises such as
| "We pledge to respect all people," in an attempt to convince
| readers that they [the authors] will behave laudably. In my
| experience, though, people who put a lot of effort into telling
| you how laudably they will behave do not behave any any more
| laudably than other people do -- slightly the contrary, in
| fact. ..._
|
| > _... I expect that I'll be delighted if you send me patches
| and bug reports, but on that count I make no promises. Feel
| free to send them repeatedly through different channels if you
| don't get a response at first, since I often don't notice
| things. If you like how I respond when you send me patches or
| bug reports, then maybe it would be a good idea to do more of
| it. If you don't like it, then maybe you would be happier if
| you stopped. I'll do my best to be polite, but I screw that up
| pretty often, to be honest. ..._
|
| > _But, as I said before, what humans tell you they will do is
| not a very reliable predictor of what they will do. If you want
| to know what to expect of them, look at their past behavior.
| Don't just look at their self-reports of their past behavior,
| although admissions against interest there can be quite
| revealing; look at traces it has left that they cannot delete,
| such as your own memory, mailing list archives, past Gitlab
| issues, and other people talking about them._
| kennywinker wrote:
| > Could J. K. Rowling require Harry Potter readers to follow
| a code of conduct?
|
| Nobody attempts to apply codes of conduct to users of
| software - that's the domain of the license agreement. They
| only apply to communities. Virtually every online community
| around harry potter has some set of rules for participating
| in that community. e.g. https://stories.jkrowling.com/terms-
| of-use/
|
| > Could Werner Heisenberg demand that you subscribe to a code
| of conduct if you want to do quantum physics?
|
| Heisenberg was the post-ww2 president of the Kaiser Wilhelm
| Institute for Physics (quickly renamed the Max Planck
| Institute post war) - which was involved in human "medical"
| experimentation in nazi concentration camps.
|
| During his governence: "after 1945 neither active
| participants in the Third Reich nor hangers-on were called to
| account" - https://www.mpg.de/history/kws-under-national-
| socialism
|
| So a guy who presided over an organization that didn't bother
| to clean house after being directly involved in the fucking
| holocaust isn't exactly my go-to for how to run a healthy
| community.
| kragen wrote:
| I'm glad you started to pick up on the subtle point about
| Heisenberg, but it sounds like you stopped halfway. What
| would be the consequences of allowing Heisenberg to dictate
| codes of conduct for quantum physicists today, or Wagner to
| dictate codes of conduct for performances of his operas?
|
| I addressed the point about applying codes of conduct to
| users of software in the document linked.
| claytongulick wrote:
| So, you skipped over the point and went directly to the ad-
| hominem.
|
| Do you learn much with this approach?
| kennywinker wrote:
| I did learn a bunch, I went on a bit of a dive refreshing
| what I knew about the MPI and Heisenberg. Interesting
| stuff.
|
| But back to your point. Your point was made using two
| examples. Bad examples, in my opinion, since the first
| doesn't apply (consumption of work vs collaboration) and
| the second one also doesn't apply (building on others
| work vs collaboration).
|
| Your further point about watching what people do vs what
| they say they do is a reasonable point, but doesn't have
| much to do with the value of a code of conduct. I'm
| pretty much in agreement, that's the best way to proceed
| when collaborating with a single individual - but
| communities are more than the sum of their parts. If
| there are three people collaborating on a project, and
| one swears a lot in their commits, and one prefers a lack
| of swearing, and one doesn't care either way - how do you
| resolve that conflict? Nothing you've said offers a
| useful tool to navigate that situation.
| meibo wrote:
| "We (the maintainers) don't want to work with you if you
| do/believe X" seems quite sane to me, it's their choice after
| all. If you don't like it, fork it or move along. Code of
| conducts are supposed to regulate how contributors to the
| project interact. Especially nowadays, where projects can come
| with a significant social aspect/dynamic, this becomes
| important.
| voxl wrote:
| If you want to participate in someone else's space you have to
| abide by their boundaries, an open source project is not yours
| to be an asshole in
| quasarj wrote:
| Ahhhh this explains the reason SQLite is so.. disciplined. It's
| created by a group of monks!
| youngNed wrote:
| It takes a special kind of arrogance to believe that you can
| rewrite the 10 commandments.
|
| But to rewrite them, see them there on the screen and not realise
| you have done it, in a much more inefficient way, and also much,
| much worse. Thats just a breakdown.
| jccooper wrote:
| Tell it St Benedict. He's the one who wrote it.
| youngNed wrote:
| I fully intend to. I have a few arguments to have with a few
| others before i get to him though, he's far from the worst.
| lfkdev wrote:
| These rules sound terrible. What is it with people to put
| everything they do in God? Just do it because you're a good guy
| and you want to do it. Not because some galactic justice tolds
| you to do it. Really a shame.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > ...and you want to do it
|
| That _want_ , for some, takes root in their beliefs and faith.
| May sound ridiculous but many things do to anyone alien to it.
| slickdifferent wrote:
| People here try to subvert expectations with their takes so much
| that it's no surprise that there are so many posts saying there
| is nothing wrong with this and to not use it if you don't agree.
| If the post wasn't specifically drawing attention to the unusual
| code of ethics, people would be dragging it through the mud for
| the potential to generate bad PR or some other example
| illustrating why 'successful companies keep their codes plain and
| boring for a reason'.
| molyss wrote:
| seeing as some people have already added some comments
| criticizing the code of conduct, I thought I'd add what I think
| is the most important parts of that code of Ethics :
|
| > No one is required to follow The Rule [...] or even think that
| [it] is a good idea. [...] anyone is free to dispute or ignore
| that idea [...]
|
| > This is a one-way promise [...]. the developers are saying "we
| will treat you this way regardless of how you treat us"
|
| No one is forcing their beliefs onto anyone. keep the pitchforks
| in the shed.
| thaneross wrote:
| I can't help but notice the contrast with the popular,
| Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct, which makes it abundantly
| clear its aim to enforce a set of beliefs on its contributors,
| with no boundaries between professional and personal life.
| bitwize wrote:
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| With good modding, no code is needed. And with bad modding,
| the best code imaginable can achieve nothing. It is all
| down to the quality of the modding.
| Spivak wrote:
| The whole point of having a code is to be a thing those
| mods can point to to justify the banhammer when people
| complain.
|
| Everyone has a CoC, some people write them down.
| Ferrotin wrote:
| > it is a response to the bigotry and harassment problems
| that were endemic to the open source communities
|
| Such as???
| Akronymus wrote:
| Advocating for removing a contributor for a statement on
| a different site, unrelated to the project, for example?
|
| https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
| tpoacher wrote:
| > combined with a good faith enforcement
|
| which, of course, is the elephant in the room, isn't it.
|
| Good faith contributors don't need the code, because it was
| not written for them. It was written for the pathological
| cases.
|
| And systems designed around pathological cases are
| themselves pathological.
| bitwize wrote:
| Good faith users don't need security policies because the
| security policies weren't written for them. They were
| written for the pathological cases.
|
| Good faith citizens don't need laws because the laws
| weren't written for them, etc.
|
| Systems designed around the pathological cases help keep
| those pathological cases at bay. They are a framework for
| allowing the good-faith people to continue to act in good
| faith without having to constantly worry about the
| pathological cases themselves. I'd love to go back to the
| days when people left their doors unlocked and no one had
| a password to get into their account, but those days are
| gone. So are the days of not having a code of conduct on
| your open source project.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > all current developers have pledged to follow the spirit of
| The Rule to the best of their ability
|
| This one seems to be just the same, for better or worse?
| logifail wrote:
| > a set of beliefs
|
| The elephant in the room in many current attempts to
| encourage "diversity" is that a genuinely diverse range of
| opinions and/or beliefs ends up being not welcome at all.
| fooey wrote:
| Paradox of Tolerance:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
|
| > The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is
| tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is
| eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl
| Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory
| idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the
| society must retain the right to be intolerant of
| intolerance.
| generalizations wrote:
| >> the developers are saying "we will treat you this way
| regardless of how you treat us"
|
| > in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society
| must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance
|
| I have a lot more respect for people whose ethics are not
| conditional on the behavior of others.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| That only works if you don't label half the population as
| intolerant.
| doctor_eval wrote:
| It's not about labels. Speech that singles other people
| or groups out for different treatment or is otherwise
| racist, sexist, etc is intolerant. In a just society, we
| simply ask that one makes one's point without throwing
| specific groups under the proverbial bus.
| BrainVirus wrote:
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| Sounds like a license to be intolerant, if only you can
| convince people that your opponents were intolerant
| first.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| We need a new secular code-society, where we separate
| code from personal beliefs, and assign "societal points"
| only by merit.
|
| The problem with tolerance and intolerance is, that a few
| people (a loud minority) think they're the universal good
| guys, even in cases where their "good thing" is
| incompatible with itself.
| gunfighthacksaw wrote:
| logifail wrote:
| > If you have a truly diverse group of people, they will
| not suffer fascists in their group
|
| Not sure why one has to jump straight to fascists.
|
| Shouldn't a truly diverse group of people always include
| people with views that you disagree with?
|
| Otherwise we're defining a diverse group as 'looking
| diverse ' yet all thinking the same.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| I think it's helpful when seeing the word "fascist" in
| 2022 to not take it literally. It now simply means
| "people to the right of me".
| lsh123 wrote:
| So a "fascist" in Italy between the wars wants/supports:
|
| - voting rights for all (including women);
|
| - proportional representation and legislative power via
| election;
|
| - eight hour work day;
|
| - minimum wage;
|
| - earlier retirement (55);
|
| - labor unions.
|
| And the list goes on. At that time, this program would be
| "left of center".
|
| Remember, that the other word "nazism" is a short for
| National Socialism, a purely left based ideology. The two
| (fascism and nazism) had a good run together as the best
| friends since they didn't have a lot of topics to fight
| about.
|
| Edit: fix formatting
| gunfighthacksaw wrote:
| It would be extremely naive to think that fascism only
| happened in the 1920s-1940s.
|
| Obviously, todays fascism looks nothing like that of the
| modern era, just as todays leftists are different.
|
| But it's back, poisoning our democracies and pushing the
| world into a new hell. Putin is a neofascist. I could
| tell you which Americans are fascists, but you all get
| touchy when anyone brings it up.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Ah yes, the crypto-fascism conspiracy theory - or the
| blackshirt scare.
|
| There's fascists everywhere. They don't call themselves
| that, they don't organise under that label, and their
| views aren't particularly similar to historical fascism -
| but it's a serious threat! It's so powerful that they
| have to keep it a secret because they'll be cast out of
| polite society...
|
| At least McCarthy actually found people spying for the
| USSR.
| gunfighthacksaw wrote:
| > They don't call themselves that, they don't organise
| under that label
|
| Why would they? Much of our current mythology is based
| around slaughtering fascists in WW2. Why would anyone
| identify with that?
|
| > their views aren't particularly similar to historical
| fascism
|
| Hence the appellation of neofascism. There is a direct
| thread of political genealogy from the alt-right to the
| OG fascists, through the European Nouvelle Droite
| (inspired by Mussolini) and including figures like Steve
| Bannon who used to push the British BNP: a legitimately
| neofascist party. He also was buddy with Dugin for a
| while: a confirmed neofascist.
|
| Read some fucking history and get stuck into the thought
| and theories of the far right if you want to play this
| game son.
|
| > it's a serious threat!
|
| Finally, we can agree! Look at the escalating far right
| violence in the US and Canada, and the erosion of the
| open society in Europe, and the current actions of Russia
| and China.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Or how about, instead of that, we recognize that the vast
| majority of people are not engaging in political
| violence, revolution, or physically attacking their
| political opponents, or any of these allegedly horrible
| things that you think are happening.
|
| And instead of that, we should recognize that most people
| just want to do work at their workplace, have friends,
| and live their life, and are not apart of any neo nazi
| groups that are going to target minorities at the drop of
| the hat.
|
| Most people, are just regular normal individuals, who are
| not engaging in horrible actions or attacks against
| others, and we do not need to be on a witch hunt to find
| the secret nazis that you think are hiding just around
| the corner.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| My sibling in humanity. I beg you. Read about the history
| of fascism and its contemporary movements instead of just
| parroting ill informed bumper stickers, because you're
| about half a step away from saying the that the
| Democratic Republic of Germany was democracy.
| Veelox wrote:
| It's amusing to me that you comment complaining that
| fascists will seize power given the chance. I have seen
| the same thought process but pointing at wokism instead
| of fascism. The parallel is so strong I had to reread
| your post to double check which side you were arguing to
| support.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| Well, you wasted no time whatsoever in playing the Nazi
| card.
|
| If you're willing to hear a counterpoint: I disagree
| wholeheartedly with your worldview, and yet I support
| your right to express your views. See, I'm not looking to
| "silence", "suppress", or "destroy" you, even though I
| disagree with you. Please make a mental note that people
| like me exist and not everybody who disagrees with you is
| a fascist.
| gunfighthacksaw wrote:
| I'm not talking about silencing people I disagree with in
| terms of opinion. I'm talking about fascists disagreeing
| that certain ethnic/sexual/gender groups should be alive
| or allowed to thrive, or have certain rights.
|
| If you think holding views like that is OK, you walk,
| talk and quack like a fascist.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| > I'm not talking about silencing people I disagree with
| in terms of opinion. I'm talking about fascists
| disagreeing that certain ethnic/sexual/gender groups
| should be alive or allowed to thrive, or have certain
| rights. If you think holding views like that is OK, you
| walk, talk and quack like a fascist.
|
| That's a nice motte-and-bailey lumping together "should
| be alive" and "have certain rights". The former is a very
| specific kind of extreme biggot, and the latter can mean
| almost anything. You know, words have actual meanings and
| not everybody who disagrees with you is a fascist. You
| can look up the definition of the word "fascist" in a
| dictionary. The definition is a lot narrower than you
| think. A religious person who opposes abortion is not a
| fascist. An athlete who opposes trans womens' rights to
| compete in womens' competitions is not a fascist.
| zorpner wrote:
| > A religious person who opposes abortion is not a
| fascist. An athlete who opposes trans womens' rights to
| compete in womens' competitions is not a fascist.
|
| Actually, if they support using the power of the state to
| enforce either of those beliefs, they're both fascists!
| Happy to help clarify.
| gunfighthacksaw wrote:
| > A religious person who opposes abortion is not a
| fascist.
|
| I'd call them a theocrat, but lets not forget the close
| ties between fascism and the church/new political-
| religious movements in Germany and Italy.
|
| > An athlete who opposes trans womens' rights to compete
| in womens' competitions is not a fascist.
|
| This one is nuanced because transgender folks being
| allowed to exist openly is still fairly recent, and
| openly in sports is more novel still. There are fascists
| in that camp for sure, but also a lot of reasoned debate
| needed to work out the cultural niche for trans people in
| this area. Unfortunately the left will seek to stop any
| debate, and fascists will poison the debate until trans
| people are bludgeoned into silence once more.
| savingsPossible wrote:
| Holding a view is different than thinking the view is OK
| to hold.
|
| AND, most people (you'd accuse of thinking the view is ok
| to hold) don't think these views *are* ok to hold, but
| are caught in a purposefully wide net.
|
| Like, often we hear that: * proposition 8 was fascist *
| brendan eich is a fascist because he donated to it *
| supporting brendan eich is fascist
|
| I agree with marriage equality. (it is actually good
| conservatism, even!) But I disagree that prop 8 was
| fascist (and according to some that probably makes me a
| fascist as well)
| teakettle42 wrote:
| Whereas your use of "a group of people from multiple
| ethnicities, genders, sexualities and creeds" is code
| for:
|
| > People who agree with my political ideology.
|
| A woman of color that held heretical beliefs contrary to
| your orthodoxy would be no more welcome than anyone else.
|
| It's telling that you argue that your opponents are
| "people who want to silence, suppress and destroy anyone
| not part of the dominant group", and then immediately
| turn around use that assertion to justify the necessity
| of silencing and suppressing those not part of your
| dominant group.
| Akronymus wrote:
| I personally see the creator covenant to be a huge detriment,
| if not even a danger, to open source.
| comment500 wrote:
| Agreed, as an atheist it all sounds fine to me. I can respect
| their code of ethics without feeling the need to adopt it
| myself.
|
| I'm grateful to the author of SQLite for releasing this
| excellent piece of software into the public domain and
| continuing to maintain it for the benefit of all. If providing
| this good work to the world was driven by his Christian
| principles, then really, who are any of us to criticise.
| Indeed, we should all be thankful.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > No one is forcing their beliefs onto anyone. keep the
| pitchforks in the shed.
|
| I don't want a solution, I want to be mad.
| celticninja wrote:
| Reddit is that way ->
| smoe wrote:
| > The founder of SQLite and all current developers have pledged
| to follow the spirit of The Rule to the best of their ability.
|
| Sure, as far as I'm aware code of conducts/ethics only ever
| apply to contributors, no-one has beliefs being forced upon
| them. But that seems to be about the highest bar of entry for
| an interested developer I have seen in any project.
|
| Not waving pitchforks here, I'm fine with them having this code
| of ethics, even tough I disagree with about half the points and
| find being asked to do such a pledge way to intrusive into
| personal life.
| ripley12 wrote:
| SQLite generally doesn't accept contributions. "Open-Source,
| not Open-Contribution" https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
| jacooper wrote:
| I don't understand why he didn't just use MIT or CC0 as
| license.
|
| It gives the same rights and the same limitless nature, so
| why use an arbitrary license which might cause problems in
| some countries ? And also makes the contribution workflow
| more complex?
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| There is no license. And all the contributors are in
| countries that recognize the concept of public domain.
| Why should they concern themselves with the niceties of
| licensing in _some countries_? How would choosing a
| different license guarantee a different outcome in those
| unspecified _some countries_?
| MatthiasPortzel wrote:
| MIT requires that a copy of the license is distributed
| with the software--which means it is not strictly public-
| domain equivalent.
|
| CC0 was not intended to be used as a software license,
| and IRCC includes a clause that the author withholds any
| patent rights, which which has its own set of concerns.
|
| In practice, either of them would have worked fine, but
| part of the beauty of public domain code is that you can
| avoid having to specify a license.
| smoe wrote:
| Even when not accepting outside contributions, to fulfill
| their long term support commitment through 2050, they might
| have to make changes to their current core team.
| threatofrain wrote:
| If they do, then they will have to find people who
| embrace Christian spiritualism. That's going to be a lot
| easier than finding Lisp devs. Similarly, Christian
| institutions seek Christian employees and they fire those
| who cannot abide.
| chasil wrote:
| This point seems incongruous to me, without its opposite:
|
| "45. Be in dread of hell."
|
| In zeal for mutual understanding, and practical fruit in
| general solutions that solve problems escaping a single
| perspective, would be that opposite for me.
|
| We cannot approach the sublime within ourselves by fear, in
| my opinion.
|
| There are a few other well-known teachings that appear to be
| missing from these rules, the first among them is the New
| Commandment.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Commandment
| tootie wrote:
| I'm not sure what their organization is exactly but a private
| company isn't allowed to force a religious test on employees.
| I think it doesn't apply to an open source project but I sure
| don't like it. It's exclusionary.
| [deleted]
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Except for all the current developers which makes it seem like
| Christianity is a prerequisite for getting hired or
| contributing.
|
| I get frustrated at the SJW CoCs but this is arguably just as
| bad or worse.
| ksherlock wrote:
| Every time you come home and the SQLite developers aren't
| having sex with your wife, you should appreciate their code
| of Ethics. What other software makes that promise? Heck,
| Oracle probably probably upcharges, $500,000 or more for a
| 6-9s no adultery support plan (and that still gives them 52
| minutes a year to commit adultery with your wife!)
| jhgb wrote:
| > makes it seem like Christianity is a prerequisite for
| getting hired or contributing
|
| ...how could one possibly get this impression, when it
| literally says "No one is required to follow The Rule"?
| isitmadeofglass wrote:
| > ...how could one possibly get this impression, when it
| literally says "No one is required to follow The Rule"?
|
| Now hear here miss, while true that the board of directors
| are all men, and have been so for 5 decades, we reject any
| notion of sexism as we clearly have here a document which
| states that "We believe men are superior to women, but we
| do not require employees to hold this belief..." also it's
| voluntary and a compete coincidence that all employees have
| voluntarily vowed that they agree to this and that all
| employees are also male. It can't be sexist since we do not
| force anyone to agree to do anything.
|
| Hope the context shift makes it a bit easier to see why
| some people might call this suspicious.
| jhgb wrote:
| Not quite sure where the document says anything about
| women. While Benedictines couldn't include women, I
| strongly doubt that there is any such insinuation here.
| ev1 wrote:
| Don't forget 'was created for the purpose of filling in a
| box on "supplier registration" forms [.....] This document
| continues to be used for its original purpose - providing a
| reference to fill in the "code of conduct" box on supplier
| registration forms.'
| Epa095 wrote:
| This part:
|
| >The founder of SQLite and all current developers have
| pledged to follow the spirit of The Rule to the best of
| their ability. [...] In other words, the developers are
| saying: "We will treat you this way regardless of how you
| treat us."
|
| I would definitely not be able to honestly commit to such a
| pledge. Do you think they will add a "(except epa095)" if I
| get hired? Or maybe I just won't get hired. IDK, but just
| like OP I read it as a requirement for contributing.
| jhgb wrote:
| Why not? If you're, for example, irreligious, then the
| best of your ability obviously doesn't include religious
| observations (and in fact, one could even make a solid
| argument that "interactions with each other, with their
| clients, and with the larger SQLite user community" don't
| touch the religious portions of Benedictine rules even
| for religious SQLite contributors because the clauses
| talking about relationship with God or Christ are simply
| not applicable to these interactions because none of the
| developers, clients, or larger SQLite user community
| include God or Christ). For example I'm a 110% atheist
| and yet I'd have zero problems with this. And again, you
| seem to be selectively ignoring the "this is not
| mandatory" part for some reason. If that part is a lie
| then the whole document is worthless as a guideline. You
| can't take a document telling you what to do and assume
| that it's randomly lying to you. If did that, then you'd
| have to consider your whole expected behavior to be
| unknowable.
| isitmadeofglass wrote:
| > Why not?
|
| why does it matter? If a company only hires men would you
| tell woman that they could just say they identify as men,
| and therefore there is no problem?
| jhgb wrote:
| That's a really bad analogy because I'm really not being
| asked to identify as a Benedictine here. In fact in order
| for your analogy to be more correct, the exact opposite
| -- "they could just say they _don 't_ identify as men" --
| would have to be said.
| flaviut wrote:
| SQLite neither accepts external contribution nor do they hire
| anyone.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| They do not accept contributions unless they are dedicated
| to the public domain. It's not quite as strict a no
| contributions at all.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| I guess all the contributions magically appear out of thin
| air since nobody is allowed to contribute from outside the
| organization and nobody has ever joined the organization to
| contribute from the inside either.
| rasengan0 wrote:
| 39. Be not a grumbler.
|
| I have failed, but sqlite yields no grumbling
| jiripospisil wrote:
| kennywinker wrote:
| Meh. I'm deeply atheist, but if I s/god/luck, s/christ/this-
| philosophy and s/prayer/contemplative-thought it doesn't seem
| to me there's much in there that's objectionable... except
| maybe 11, 44, 45, 57, and 63. Less than 7% drivel by my
| generous accounting.
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| >> Pretty disappointing. I would have expected better than this
| religious drivel. If it's a joke, then you got me.
|
| You can respect a person and their views on how they treat
| others without disparaging them.
|
| It states: "No one is required to follow The Rule, to know The
| Rule, or even to think that The Rule is a good idea. The
| Founder of SQLite believes that anyone who follows The Rule
| will live a happier and more productive life, but individuals
| are free to dispute or ignore that advice if they wish."
|
| Common descency and respect towards others does not ask you to
| believe as they do, but to let them speak and be heard.
| jl6 wrote:
| > Be in dread of hell.
|
| This one's in the Oracle Master Agreement too.
| utopcell wrote:
| I've used SQLite in the long past (early 2000s) and had fun with
| it, but I had never seen this. Imposing your religious beliefs
| through a ..code of "ethics" no less, in exchange for some
| (arguably small) thing you've done that is completely irrelevant
| to these beliefs is ludicrous. While I secretly hope that the
| author is light-spirited in writing this, I will err on the safe
| side and never use, and actively steer folks away from using,
| SQLite in the future.
|
| Incidentally, the page has some internal consistency issues:
|
| ``` Honor all people. ```
|
| has historically not played well with:
|
| ``` First of all, love the Lord God with your whole heart, your
| whole soul, and your whole strength. Deny oneself in order to
| follow Christ. Prefer nothing more than the love of Christ. Put
| your hope in God. Attribute to God, and not to self, whatever
| good you see in yourself. Fear the Day of Judgment. Be in dread
| of hell. Desire eternal life with all the passion of the spirit.
| Keep death daily before your eyes. Know for certain that God sees
| you everywhere. When wrongful thoughts come into your heart, dash
| them against Christ immediately. Listen willingly to holy
| reading. Devote yourself frequently to prayer. Daily in your
| prayers, with tears and sighs, confess your past sins to God, and
| amend them for the future. Obey in all things the commands of
| those whom God has placed in authority over you even though they
| (which God forbid) should act otherwise, mindful of the Lord's
| precept, "Do what they say, but not what they do." Do not wish to
| be called holy before one is holy; but first to be holy, that you
| may be truly so called. Fulfill God's commandments daily in your
| deeds. Pray for your enemies in the love of Christ. Never despair
| of God's mercy. ```
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > in exchange for some (arguably small) thing you've done
|
| I dunno that I'd describe the most deployed database in the
| world "some (arguably small) thing", really?
| utopcell wrote:
| Scale is relative: my day-to-day involves working at a
| planet-scale serving infrastructure that handles trillions of
| documents. I've always thought of sqlite as "this little
| library that you drop in for handling small datasets
| reliably". For the sake of argument though, let it be a
| library that is deployed everywhere: its usefulness or
| technical prowess was never in question.
|
| There are religious folks whose work I reference or use
| frequently, but they keep their beliefs to themselves. Don
| Knuth is a canonical example of this for me. No issues there,
| anyone should be free to believe whatever gets them through
| their day.
|
| In my (subjective, biased, maybe incorrect,) opinion, people
| whose code of "ethics" includes phrases like "keep death
| daily before your eyes, fear the Day of Judgment and be in
| dread of hell" are dangerous. I doubt they're even aware that
| hell was _voted_ in existence centuries after their savior
| was crucified. The amount of life lost and the intellectual
| stagnation stemming from these religious fanatics, these
| broken people, is staggering. We 'd have reached Alpha
| Centauri by now were it not for them.
| zachallaun wrote:
| While I would never agree to this particular Code of Ethics,
| this document isn't intended to be some license you agree to in
| order to use SQLite. See "2.1. Scope of Application" -- It
| makes it clear that this is intended to be the developer's
| promise to the user, not the other way around.
| ciupicri wrote:
| It's breeze of fresh air compared to most code of conducts which
| sound like communist propaganda. This and the Linux code of
| conflict.
| kennywinker wrote:
| I'm not sure what you think communism is, but:
|
| 2. Then, love your neighbor as yourself.
|
| 5. Do not steal.
|
| 6. Do not covet.
|
| 14. Relieve the poor.
|
| 15. Clothe the naked.
|
| 18. Be a help in times of trouble.
|
| 38. Be not lazy.
|
| Those are all pretty deeply in line with marxism. Jesus was a
| communist, after all.
| homieg33 wrote:
| Free will
| kennywinker wrote:
| 42. Attribute to God, and not to self, whatever good you
| see in yourself.
|
| 59. Fulfill not the desires of the flesh; hate your own
| will.
|
| 60. Obey in all things the commands of those whom God has
| placed in authority over you even though they (which God
| forbid) should act otherwise, mindful of the Lord's
| precept, "Do what they say, but not what they do."
|
| I'm not seeing a lot of room for free will in this
| document.
| d0100 wrote:
| Free will is being able to decide to let it go
| michaelsbradley wrote:
| Human freedom is the freedom to do good, not license to
| do whatever you want to do or can do.
| kennywinker wrote:
| Freedom to do good? That's already been covered: 42.
| Attribute to God, and not to self, whatever good you see
| in yourself.
|
| That's not your freedom or your will, that's god's doing.
| Or so this document says. So by your definition, there is
| no free will in this document.
| jhgb wrote:
| He must have some sort of weird US interpretation of
| communism because "most code of conducts [sic!]" say
| absolutely nothing about proletariat-bourgeoisie relations in
| society. If anything, they're an instrument of capitalism.
| ciupicri wrote:
| I was talking about the implementation, not what was it
| supposed to be like. I haven't seen something like "love your
| neighbor as yourself". On the other hand inclusion and
| diversity were important topics. Former communist countries
| have more women in STEM.
| [deleted]
| voxl wrote:
| Right, instead it's just Christian Fundamentalism, not like the
| U.S. doesn't have a problem with that
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| It does, but your left wing fundamentalists aint much
| different.
| ciupicri wrote:
| It's not mandatory, while fundamentalism is way stricter.
| newintellectual wrote:
| petilon wrote:
| So... what is SQLite's stance on abortion?
|
| [Edit] Found it: it's supported:
| https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3912417/is-there-a-way-t...
| nodesocket wrote:
| His stance is his own and frankly private. If he chooses to
| open up about it publicly fine, but sitting on a soap box
| online demanding political and private questions wreaks of
| moral and intellectual false superiority.
| petilon wrote:
| But it is in line with the 72 rules listed. If you're a
| developer who wants to contribute to SQLite, you might want
| to know beforehand if you will be expected to sign on to a
| 73rd rule.
| csande17 wrote:
| One benefit of adopting a 1,500-year-old code of ethics is
| that it's probably not going to suddenly change on you.
| racl101 wrote:
| SQLite: "When my mother was abducted by the Communists, she was
| with child.... but the Communists, they put an end to that! So,
| on this issue there is no debate! And no intelligent person can
| think differently."
| hobo_mark wrote:
| According to the Search Engine, that's a quote from Seinfeld,
| nothing to do with SQLite.
|
| https://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheCouch.html
| [deleted]
| My104thaccount wrote:
| adamgordonbell wrote:
| Before I got to talk with Richard, I found many things online
| about his Christian values and public domain license and how odd
| it was.
|
| And I thought this was THE fascinating thing about Richard that
| led to the database and other things.
|
| But then I talked to him. He's a great engineer but a regular guy
| running a business around a thing he built.
|
| He gets to be a bit whimsical because he can. He can use his own
| source control and license, and he can certainly make up a code
| of ethics, to check a check box on some form somewhere.
|
| The cool thing about SQLite is that he built this thing and gets
| to do things his way.
|
| This is just a specific instance of that.
|
| Shameless plug: https://corecursive.com/066-sqlite-with-richard-
| hipp/
| earth_walker wrote:
| Just want to say that I loved this interview, it was the first
| I had heard of your show and I've been a regular listener
| since. Thank you!
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Hey Adam, I just started listening to your podcast and I just
| finished that episode.
|
| You did a great job, and it was really informative. Thanks for
| making it!
| amerine wrote:
| This episode inspired me to join your patreon. Thanks for the
| great podcast.
| dash2 wrote:
| That's a great interview - so interesting not just on Richard
| but also on the early history of Android and mobile phone
| development. He seems like the best kind of libertarian, not
| just "oh give me lower taxes" but "I want to be free and I'm
| gonna pay the price to do that".
| alexpetros wrote:
| I started listening to your podcast a month ago because I was
| curious about SQLite and came across the transcript. This
| episode is excellent, as is the podcast backlog overall. I
| highly recommend it to my friends.
| quinnjh wrote:
| At a time of decaying social bonds, cultural fragmentation, and
| no consensus reality, i would much rather work somewhere with an
| explicit code like this than the countless "we are good people"
| places that will never define what "being good people" is until
| they are on the opposite side of a courtroom. Having shared
| values is very important for a team.
| duxup wrote:
| I like the idea of such a code. But at the same time I see
| religions with that or similar codes and the folks following it
| seem just as interested in ignoring it or twisting it as a way
| to push on those not in their religion.
|
| Now I don't think that's the sql lite folks and plenty of folks
| don't do that thing... but just a splash of religion doesn't
| make me feel much better about anything.
| keybored wrote:
| What's your current religion?
| sremani wrote:
| SQLite is anti-fragile.
| nindalf wrote:
| There's that libertarian streak of "his project, his rules" in
| this thread. He can include or exclude anyone he wants because
| it's his project.
|
| Well, I read the very first line and see that he doesn't want me,
| or people like me to be a contributor to this project. And
| _that's fine_. His project, so I hear. But personally, I've felt
| welcome to contribute to every other open source project out
| there. I've felt welcome to apply to any job out there. It feels
| jarring to be excluded like this. I feel hurt. I shouldn't be
| made to feel like this, just because of my religious views.
|
| And no, please don't split any hairs like "no, he's not
| excluding, he's actually describing...". You wouldn't be
| supporting him if the first line changed to be based on race
| instead of religion. Then why are you supporting him now?
| ripley12 wrote:
| > I've felt welcome to contribute to every other open source
| project out there
|
| This is strange to me, because... we're not welcome in every
| other open source project. Many open source projects are
| maintained by a single person or a small team and are not
| particularly interested in accepting changes from outsiders.
| SQLite is one of those; they generally don't accept
| contributions.
| adamrezich wrote:
| from https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html:
|
| > SQLite is open-source, meaning that you can make as many
| copies of it as you want and do whatever you want with those
| copies, without limitation. But SQLite is not open-
| contribution. In order to keep SQLite in the public domain and
| ensure that the code does not become contaminated with
| proprietary or licensed content, the project does not accept
| patches from people who have not submitted an affidavit
| dedicating their contribution into the public domain.
|
| what makes you think that every open-source project should
| "make you feel welcome"? "I shouldn't be made to feel like
| this"--where does that idea come from? "shouldn't" on what
| basis? many open-source projects' Codes of
| Ethics/Conduct/whatever make me feel explicitly unwelcome, but
| a.) I don't care, and b.) I don't feel entitled to feel welcome
| in everyone else's project. what makes you feel differently?
| nindalf wrote:
| > many open-source projects' Codes of Ethics/Conduct/whatever
| make me feel explicitly unwelcome
|
| Most open source projects Code of Conduct boil down to "don't
| be mean to other contributors, treat them well". I'm sorry
| this makes you feel explicitly unwelcome. That said, it's
| never been a problem for me to adhere to that.
|
| This is a first time for me being excluded, and it feels bad.
| I'm commenting on why this person has gone out of his way to
| do that.
|
| Exclusion is _not the norm_ in online programming spaces. Nor
| would we tolerate it if someone started excluding people on
| the basis of something like race. But seemingly there are
| apologists for exclusion on the basis of religion.
| adamrezich wrote:
| until a few years ago, it was _implicit_ that everyone
| contributing to open-source projects would treat each other
| respectfully, because personal politics or identity issues
| or whatever were wholly divorced from writing code to make
| computers do things. this is no longer the case, and people
| running many open-source projects feel the need to
| legislate morality upon its contributors, as though they
| were kindergarten teachers. I personally find this
| objectionable, and such "spaces" make me feel unwelcome...
| but, again, I don't care, I don't feel _entitled_ to be a
| part of any online "space" other than ones I myself
| create.
|
| what could possibly cause this sense of entitlement in your
| mind? what universal moral imperative do you believe exists
| that everyone is supposed to abide by with regards to
| publicly allowing contributions to their own open-source
| programming projects, and why do you believe it does or
| should exist?
| nindalf wrote:
| > what could possibly cause this sense of entitlement
|
| You keep typing this out in different words, almost like
| you're seeking to reinforce over and over that I'm
| entitled. I see what you're doing, you're heard.
|
| And I'll say what I've said earlier - I feel entitled to
| be treated well because people generally treat me well.
|
| And your brilliant contribution is "but why should that
| be the norm?" Thanks.
| adamrezich wrote:
| >I feel hurt.
|
| >I shouldn't be made to feel like this
|
| this is entitlement. en*ti*tle*ment
| /in'tidlm@nt,en'tidlm@nt/ noun the fact
| of having a right to something.
|
| somehow reading a Code of Ethics for an open-source
| project you had an extremely slim chance of ever
| contributing to has emotionally injured you enough to
| express said injury on the Internet. when you say "I
| should not be made to feel like this", you are saying
| that the sqlite devs are morally in the wrong for having
| their Code of Ethics written the way that it is, because
| just reading it caused you pain, because of their
| implicit disregard for your feelings, Random Person On
| The Internet.
|
| I'm having trouble seeing the disconnect between
| "somebody on the Internet has a project whose Code of
| Ethics caused me emotional pain because it made me feel
| unwelcome" and the word "entitlement". could you please
| clarify?
| aldonius wrote:
| > because personal politics or identity issues or
| whatever were wholly divorced from writing code to make
| computers do things
|
| I'd disagree there. The free-software movement, for
| example, is fundamentally tied up with a certain set of
| political-moral principles; the open-source movement is
| similarly tied up with a somewhat different set of
| principles.
|
| If someone's "not political" then maybe they're a
| weathervane, or professionally neutral, but it's probably
| more likely that what they think of as "politics" isn't
| currently fighting over a topic of salience to them.
| baobob wrote:
| > Well, I read the very first line and see that he doesn't want
| me, or people like me to be a contributor to this project.
|
| When reading from the top, he makes it abundantly clear that it
| is a code their internal team adhere to, and that external
| contributors are not expected to adhere to it or even respect
| it.
| _vertigo wrote:
| Comparing the first rule to something based on race is a bit of
| a stretch.
| nindalf wrote:
| Race is completely immutable. But religion is mostly
| immutable? Most people don't change their religious beliefs
| after a certain age. In practice, let's acknowledge that
| religion isn't changed. So telling someone, yeah you're fine
| to join us as long as you can change this characteristic
| about you that you almost certainly won't change ... how is
| that actually different?
| _vertigo wrote:
| I guess in practice I have seen a lot of race based
| persecution and discrimination, not so much religious
| persecution. Not saying it doesn't exist anywhere or for
| anyone, but based on my own experience, saying "love the
| lord god" feels way less discriminatory than "white people
| are preferred to block people" or something.
| nindalf wrote:
| Ah, fair enough. I come from a country where religion
| based discrimination is the norm. And I fucking detest
| it. Whenever I see it I'm going to call it out.
|
| Thanks for the perspective. I see now why folks in this
| thread are acting so cavalier about this - they haven't
| seen what I've seen.
| verytrivial wrote:
| This sort of thing used to annoy me in my youth. But there is a
| lot of good stuff in there. These are directions on how YOU
| should live your life, so strike out as appropriate. SQLite is
| great and if pondering these rules helped, only a fool would
| avoid pondering them out of spite.
| tootie wrote:
| But they could just strike all the ones that mention god and
| he'll and not lost anything of value. I also think the morality
| only rings true if you were raised in a Christian dominated
| society. No one living in the real world can afford to love
| their enemies. That's what people in monasteries can say but
| not ones who are responsible for protecting people.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Seems pretty self-important/pretentious. It's just a database,
| guys.
| ben_jones wrote:
| You didn't know SQLite cures cancer?
| jccooper wrote:
| "This document continues to be used for its original purpose -
| providing a reference to fill in the "code of conduct" box on
| supplier registration forms."
| thrown_22 wrote:
| I remember the code of conduct push overnight on all open
| source projects. It was such a bizarre time. What's worse is
| that pretty much everyone folded.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| What would you consider the best response to the desire for
| clear boundaries and expectations from project communities?
| vinyl7 wrote:
| "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can
| never hurt me"
| teakettle42 wrote:
| The best response? "No".
|
| The code of conduct push was a transparent game of social
| aggression -- an attempt to shift open source power
| dynamics in favor of:
|
| (1) Allowing social activists, who could not acquire
| institutional power on the basis of their own technical
| merit, to co-opt open source institutions for their own
| aims and to extract resources. See also the contributor
| covenant, DEI consultants, et al.
|
| (2) Securing the necessary power structures to enforce
| the beliefs of their particular vein of progressive
| political activism.
|
| In my experience being very involved with a few large
| projects that were pressured into adopting a code of
| conduct, the historically most toxic and socially
| aggressive personalities in the project became the
| biggest proponents of adopting a code of conduct,
| engaging in bad faith and with extreme social aggression
| to tear down any detractors, hiding behind their newfound
| righteousness as a defense.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| So a few bad apples has ruined the whole idea in your
| mind?
|
| Are you also satisfied with the diversity within the
| project communities that you contribute to?
| teakettle42 wrote:
| > So a few bad apples has ruined the whole idea in your
| mind?
|
| It's not a few. They're primarily a tool for bad actors
| to secure institutional power.
|
| However, even if we take the surface-level arguments for
| a code of conduct in good faith, the entire concept is
| rooted in the premise that a healthy community arises out
| of strictly codifying social norms and permissible
| beliefs, imbuing a central, unaccountable authority with
| the power to police and enforce those norms, and treating
| dissension with this approach as a moral failing in of
| itself.
|
| > Are you also satisfied with the diversity within the
| project communities that you contribute to?
|
| I don't know how to answer that question; can you define
| "diversity" for me?
|
| What personal attributes should I poll from all
| contributors to measure their diversity? Do you have a
| score sheet I can use? What does it mean if our
| "diversity score" is too low? What does that have to do
| with a code of conduct?
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Without clear boundaries around conduct many communities
| become toxic. In gaming (playing and related projects)
| for example it pushes out girls and women, or at least to
| hide their gender.
|
| Forums have long had rules, spoken or unspoken. Making
| them more explicit is helpful IME.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Being part of the most diverse possible team simply isn't
| a priority and mostly seems to function as a distracting
| sideshow for the benefit of the fundraising wings of the
| organization/project.
| [deleted]
| swarnie wrote:
| I failed at step 1
|
| > No one is required to follow The Rule, to know The Rule, or
| even to think that The Rule is a good idea.
|
| Oh thank god for that...
| keybored wrote:
| Super weird to make a COC about your Christian values but I
| respect the check-the-form hustle.
| byecomputer wrote:
| I think it's funny. "Need a code of conduct? Here, this one's a
| classic"
| [deleted]
| amachefe wrote:
| Another one?
|
| Looks like we get this every quarter..
|
| Anyway, if you dont like it, fork it... or use another Db.
| victor9000 wrote:
| No less ridiculous than other similar documents out there
| [deleted]
| nabla9 wrote:
| Robustness principle: "be conservative in what you do, be liberal
| in what you accept from others"[1] is a good ethical rule.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
| edflsafoiewq wrote:
| A much better ethical rule than a technical one actually.
| tomohawk wrote:
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| ripley12 wrote:
| I'm not religious but I've always liked this; it's fun to think
| of the SQLite developers as a small monastery. If monasteries can
| produce beer for the world (see: the Trappists), why not
| software?
| wyager wrote:
| If software engineering was available as a monastic vocation,
| we'd probably have a lot of significantly higher-quality
| software available. I would much rather use something written
| by a stylite with an esolang compiler than shat out by 100
| poorly-coordinated javascript devs at MEGACORP.
| don-code wrote:
| You may enjoy reading Neal Stephenson's _Anathem_.
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| I dunno about monastic programming getting a lot of takers.
| Don't forget that there's usually a vow of poverty involved;
| fully loaded Macbook Pros or decked out 16 core Threadripper
| workstations are not part of the picture.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| However, a communal Mac Pro may be part of the
| infrastructure. It's a vow of individual poverty, but that
| doesn't mean the monastery itself does not contain riches
| that its monks have access to but do not privately own.
| defenestration wrote:
| There is a truth hidden in here. I would love to spend time
| at a monastry and code.
| nemo1618 wrote:
| You can! I spent a week co-working at MAPLE
| (https://www.monasticacademy.com) earlier this month,
| living among monastics and participating in their practice.
| Honestly, I didn't get a lot of programming done, but
| that's probably because my goal shifted rather quickly from
| "get a lot of work done" to "take advantage of this rare
| opportunity to develop my meditation practice." Still, I
| think it'd be a great environment for focused programming:
| you're in a quiet, beautiful setting, your meals are taken
| care of, and you're surrounded by people who are diligent,
| respectful, and committed to solving important problems.
| defenestration wrote:
| Thanks for the suggestion and sharing your experience.
| Good to hear that it brought you peace of mind. Would be
| wonderful to participate. I'm living in Western Europe
| and would like to reduce flying. Any recommendations on a
| similar centre within the range of 500 to 1000km from the
| Netherlands?
| sorokod wrote:
| A path "Anathem" did not explore.What would millenarians do
| with a software project?
| Lio wrote:
| Of course not. That would be strictly something for the Ita
| to deal with. :D
| sorokod wrote:
| Oh I don't know, they could build computers using
| mechanical contraptions.
|
| You can do a lot in a thousand years if you put your mind
| to it.
| Lio wrote:
| I don't know that sounds like mechanical praxis to me. If
| it wasn't grandfathered in then it was probably banned in
| a Convox.
| sorokod wrote:
| That is possible.
|
| Maybe some avout would develop a discipline where they
| execute programs in their minds. Some sort of Chinese
| Room setup but for general purpose computing.
| duskwuff wrote:
| Something like this is actually hinted at in the novel,
| about halfway through Part 9:
|
| > The Orithenans had used a system of computational
| chanting that, it was plain to see, was rooted in
| traditions that their founders had brought over from
| Edhar. To that point, it was clearly recognizable to any
| Edharian. It was a way of carrying out computations on
| patterns of information by permuting a given string of
| notes into new melodies. The permutation was done on the
| fly by following certain rules, defined using the
| formalism of cellular automata. After the Second Sack
| reforms, newly computerless avout had invented this kind
| of music. In some concents it had withered away, in
| others mutated into something else, but at Edhar it had
| always been practiced seriously. We'd all learned it as a
| sort of children's musical game. But at Orithena they had
| been doing new things with it, using it to solve
| problems. Or rather to solve a problem, the nature of
| which I didn't understand yet. Anyway, it _sounded_ good
| -- the results, for some reason, just tended to be more
| musical than the Edharian version, which was serviceable
| for computing things, but, as music, could be hard to
| take.
| walleeee wrote:
| there's an argument monasteries gave birth to the modern
| European scientific tradition too
| deepsun wrote:
| Or Ancient Greece (and later Rome), some 500 years before the
| monasteries.
| diegoholiveira wrote:
| > Or Ancient Greece (and later Rome), some 500 years before
| the monasteries.
|
| And we know this because monasteries kept a large army of
| monks guarding the knowledge so that it would one day serve
| society.
| kingofpandora wrote:
| Much of ancient Greek knowledge comes to us because the
| Arabs preserved it. Some of them were Christians of
| course (so the occasional monastery may have been
| involved) but mostly not.
| walleeee wrote:
| Sure, guess I should say *modern European, or perhaps
| English
|
| Bacon, Grosseteste, etc
| mattewong wrote:
| "I don't want to be beholden to Gmail [...] controlling a record
| of all of my conversations". Replacing Gmail: now THAT sounds
| interesting
| [deleted]
| ThalesX wrote:
| Hmm, is this some sort of Meta I'm missing? It feels strange to
| mix so many cultural 'suggestions' with a database product.
|
| > Listen willingly to holy reading.
|
| > Devote yourself frequently to prayer.
|
| > Daily in your prayers, with tears and sighs, confess your past
| sins to God, and amend them for the future.
|
| Anyway, sqlite is a good product and I don't even mind all that
| much to have a code of Ethics associated to it, just not a thing
| you see often.
| ticviking wrote:
| The point is that the other codes of conduct often embed other
| particular cultural suggestions and assumptions, but since they
| are those of your own you don't notice them as jarringly as
| those of medieval Christendom.
| ThalesX wrote:
| > but since they are those of your own you don't notice them
| as jarringly
|
| Why would you assume this about me and not take at face value
| that I really believe you don't find these often in the wild.
| It's just my personal experience that I haven't seen these
| out in the wild all that much (I can't think of an example),
| and it was surprising to me.
| SubjectToChange wrote:
| A Muslim coworker of mine once wrote a program that would log a
| prayer during startup. It was always fun when that block of
| text would randomly show up in one place or another.
| ThalesX wrote:
| I can see how something limited in scope, accepted by the
| team could be fun and quirky but what if every coworker
| started writing little scripts with their own beliefs popping
| up in one place or another?
| dementiapatie wrote:
| The Slack channels would finally be interesting
| zoomablemind wrote:
| > _"... No one is required to follow The Rule, to know The
| Rule, or even to think that The Rule is a good idea. The
| Founder of SQLite believes that anyone who follows The Rule
| will live a happier and more productive life, but individuals
| are free to dispute or ignore that advice if they wish. "_
|
| > _"...[the developers] view The Rule as their promise to all
| SQLite users of how the developers are expected to behave. This
| is a one-way promise, or covenant. "_
|
| This speaks of the Founder and his team. Evangelism this is
| not, but an invitation to learn of the principles they pledge
| to adhere to.
|
| I trust their sincerity, I trust the efforts they put into the
| products they shared.
| ThalesX wrote:
| > This speaks of the Founder and his team. Evangelism this is
| not, but an invitation to learn of the principles they pledge
| to adhere to.
|
| I'm not sure that I claimed it's evangelism. For me
| personally it really did it's job of 'invitation to learn...'
| because I learned. I was surprised. This is probably not
| going to change my interaction with the product in any
| significant way, but it does make me wonder if 'ethical'
| reasons will in the future affect the technical decisions.
|
| > I trust their sincerity, I trust the efforts they put into
| the products they shared.
|
| Me too! They haven't given me any reason not to.
| ohCh6zos wrote:
| A Code of Conduct was forced on them by dictate, so they did
| the right thing and made the process transparently absurd while
| also complying.
|
| Edit: The unspoken part of the demand was a 'progressive' CoC.
| tantaman wrote:
| Anything couched in religious language immediately turns people
| off even if what is being said perfectly aligns with the reader's
| beliefs.
|
| Philosophize this has some good discussions about religious
| vocabulary when discussing Kierkegaard.
| gadders wrote:
| I don't hate it.
| Jamie9912 wrote:
| i'm getting Terry Davis vibes
| rschachte wrote:
| Damn. RIP Terry, true legend
| juice_bus wrote:
| RIP
| akatechis wrote:
| The glow in the darks got him... :(
| iasay wrote:
| This scares me slightly. When I see a code of ethics bound to
| faith, I have to wonder what happens if the faith disappears.
| Experience says lots of people get hurt. I don't wish that on
| anyone.
|
| Ethical stance must stand alone unconditionally.
|
| As for the actual rules, picking one in particular, respecting
| someone purely for being senior is stupid. Respect is simply
| earned. I respect more people younger and in more junior
| positions than myself.
| [deleted]
| yodon wrote:
| >When I see a code of ethics bound to faith, I have to wonder
| what happens if the faith disappears.
|
| Let's do the math:
|
| Christianity has been around for around two orders of magnitude
| longer than any of the compilers or dev tools you're using on
| your project.
|
| There are probably three orders of magnitude more people who
| use Christianity than are using any of the languages used in
| your project.
|
| There are probably six orders of magnitude more priests and
| churches than there are maintainers on all but the top 1% of
| libraries (open source or closed source) you're using on your
| project.
|
| I'm pretty sure the complete disappearance of Christianity from
| the face of the earth is not the highest probability risk to
| worry about for your project, and if it were to completely
| disappear there would probably be enough other stuff going
| along with that disappearance that we probably all have bigger
| things on our mind than the code of ethics published by a
| software team.
|
| If the concern is just "what if the maintainers give up on
| Christianity," they're probably far more likely to get tired of
| programming (that happens far more often), but we can observe
| that their need to make a PR to edit their own code of conduct
| is not really going to be a particularly hard thing for them to
| pull off.
| iasay wrote:
| I think you entirely managed to miss the point there.
|
| People don't tell you they lost their faith. They just stop
| following their code of ethics that was bound to it.
|
| I trust a faceless corporation over this attitude.
| nyolfen wrote:
| any system of ethics ultimately must rest on axioms held on
| faith, there is nothing special about that faith being
| explicitly religious
| claytongulick wrote:
| You trust a faceless corporation more than someone who
| demonstrates the ability to learn, grow and adapt their
| thinking over time?
|
| You and I see this differently.
| iasay wrote:
| The corporation is more likely to be accountable from
| experience.
| jhgb wrote:
| Corporations and accountable? Those things all too often
| don't belong into the same sentence in Western societies.
| Individuals get into prison all the time for
| transgressions much more minor than what corporations can
| get away with just by paying often a ridiculous fine. I'd
| say that _individuals_ are much more beholden to
| accountability.
| iasay wrote:
| Yes orders of magnitude more accountable than the
| religious contribution to ethics of an individual.
| jhgb wrote:
| Sounds like a category error to me.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > don't belong into the same sentence in Western
| societies
|
| don't belong in the same sentence in the United States.
|
| There are other societies in the West.
| jhgb wrote:
| Sadly I'm not _that_ much of an optimist.
| threatofrain wrote:
| It is power which cannot be held accountable, regardless
| of who holds it. Depending on character means you are
| depending on _self_ accountability, the most wishful of
| all forms of accountability. Self accountability is for
| weight loss.
| diegoholiveira wrote:
| > People don't tell you they lost their faith. They just
| stop following their code of ethics that was bound to it.
|
| Not sure if this is true. Most Western values came from
| Christianity, even though the society today is not as
| religious as it was in the past.
| iasay wrote:
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| By the numbers far more people have suffered under these
| dithering superstitions, that doesn't make them objectively
| better.
| strager wrote:
| > far more people have suffered
|
| Compared to what?
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Compared to modern sensibilities like equality for women,
| prohibition of slavery, trial by a jury of peers,
| medicine based on evidence, etc.
| iasay wrote:
| Than if they didn't exist
| pawelmurias wrote:
| The SQLite Code of Ethics has no relevance to you using the
| license. A code of ethics base on a whim rather than faith
| wouldn't be any more reliable.
| isitmadeofglass wrote:
| There are some questionable ones in between there.
|
| > Obey in all things the commands of those whom God has placed in
| authority over you even though they (which God forbid) should act
| otherwise, mindful of the Lord's precept, "Do what they say, but
| not what they do."
|
| This would have you willingly submit to sexual assault by a
| priest. And really should be revised considering the slew of
| cases against the church, or at least be revised with some sort
| of exception not just to "not do as they do, do as they say", but
| to not obey them when they commit such acts.
|
| And yes, I understand that this is in no way forced upon anyone
| and is just a "I believe" statement, but still I would argue that
| the suggestion that those who live by these rules live happier
| lives is countered by every choirboy who submitted and obeyed a
| person god had place in authority over them, and got assaulted as
| a result. Plenty of those rules I would agree, though it seems
| every mention of the institution which is "god" is irrelevant,
| redundant, harmful or downright sinister. I think it right to cut
| down the list a slight bit.
| contravariant wrote:
| I'm somewhat worried that there's a lot of 'love thy neighbour
| as thyself' combined with a lot of self-hatred/denial.
| doliveira wrote:
| Yeah, one of the most problematic views indeed. "Don't touch
| the Lord's anointed ones" is a mandate commonly used for
| religious leaders to discourage any sort of criticism of their
| actions.
|
| Beliefs like this do matter. They inform the actions of
| millions of people across the world.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-26 23:00 UTC)