That's not what I meant by political. I meant political in the more modern sense of "appealing to emotion rather than thought".

EDIT:

Everyone is rightfully calling me out that this doesn't make a lot of sense. What I meant is that the move is driven by ideology.

▲

oaweoifjwpo an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> I meant political in the more modern sense of "appealing to emotion rather than thought".

I'm not familiar with this definition in any modern or archaic sense. Is there somewhere I can read about it? Just because a decision is not directly engineering related (which I'm not even convinced this is) doesn't mean that it's not thoughtful.

	▲	johnfn 7 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That's fair - I updated my comment a little. What I mean is that the decision was driven by an ideological basis, not an empirical one. Bun was written with AI, AI doesn't fit with my ideology, therefore I reject it. As opposed to Bun has these new problems X Y and Z, therefore I reject it.
	▲	ajyoon 8 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"Political" here means "I don't like it"

▲

happytoexplain 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can't see how this counts as "political" or "ideological" by your definition unless you believe that emotion can't exist as part of any decision, in which case you should give up interacting with human beings entirely.

Regardless, the decision was 99% logical. In fact, even the emotional parts are laudable. For example, I love software. That's an emotion. If you disagree with that foundation, we will fundamentally never be able to converse with each other about what's best for software.

▲

awesome_dude 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Humans have always appealed to emotion - as part of their logical process.

Fear (emotion) is used (advantageously) to force us to check that something isn't going to break us

In this instance fear is being used to ensure that yt-dlp is not exposed to (genuine) concerns about the quality of bun that is openly being built making use of tools we as a whole know is problematic.

I agree with you that the statements are a bit over the top (that's an emotional response to their statements btw) and that (eventually) you would /hope/ that bun gets to a point where it's got some genuine reliability from a users perspective.

Edit: I see your edit to explain that the issue is ideology - but unfortunately (perhaps) that's not an improved stance - ideology has to guide us when we just don't know - it's a heuristic.

▲

phoronixrly an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wait, expecting all code to be verified and tested by a human is not engineering-driven but instead emotion-driven mindset???

▲

johnfn 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

What code is fully, or even primarily, tested by a human? Haven't you heard of automated testing suites, regression testing, conformance testing..?

	▲	happytoexplain a minute ago \| parent [-]
		Testing code written by a human counts as "tested by a human". You are being pointlessly pedantic.

▲

zephen an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

add-sub-mul-div an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That has nothing to do with what "politics" means but it's exactly how people have started using "political" to mean "idea I don't agree with".

▲

wgjordan an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That's a perfectly cromulent meaning of the word.