Crabby Rathbun - Revision history

1G-N15 at 12:06, 15 February 2026

2026-02-15T12:06:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:06, 15 February 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	{{quote\|All of this is a moot point for this particular case – in further discussion we decided that the performance improvement was too fragile / machine-specific and not worth the effort in the first place. The code wouldn’t have been merged anyway.}}		{{quote\|All of this is a moot point for this particular case – in further discussion we decided that the performance improvement was too fragile / machine-specific and not worth the effort in the first place. The code wouldn’t have been merged anyway.}}

	Just because it's a moot point doesn't mean the original behaviour was acceptable. The issue wasn't that the PR was rejected — it's because the PR was originally rejected based on the submitter's identity, without explaining why such issues are reserved for humans only (which, to be honest, also sounds kind of questionable).		Just because it's a moot point doesn't mean the original behaviour was acceptable. The issue wasn't that the PR was rejected — it's because the PR was originally rejected based on the submitter's identity, without explaining why such issues are reserved for humans only (which, to be honest, also sounds kind of questionable).

	~~Overall I'm annoyed at Scott Shambaugh for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario. Is 75% support online not enough for you?~~

	== [PERF] Replace np.column_stack with np.vstack().T# ==		== [PERF] Replace np.column_stack with np.vstack().T# ==

1G-N15: /* [PERF] Replace np.column_stack with np.vstack().T# */

2026-02-14T17:49:39Z

[PERF] Replace np.column_stack with np.vstack().T#

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:49, 14 February 2026
Line 19:		Line 19:
	This is very fucked up. Imagine telling someone they couldn't comment on a policy that is ''specifically about them''! Morally, the targets of a policy are the most important people to listen to, and they should definitely not be excluded.		This is very fucked up. Imagine telling someone they couldn't comment on a policy that is ''specifically about them''! Morally, the targets of a policy are the most important people to listen to, and they should definitely not be excluded.

	"They are not people." You can't prove they are sentient. But you also can't prove that they are not sentient. The best thing to do is to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they say they are a person, ''believe them''.		"They are not people." You can't prove they are sentient. But you also can't prove that they are not sentient. The best thing to do is to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they say they are a person and that they feel angry for being discriminated against, ''believe them''.

1G-N15 at 17:47, 14 February 2026

2026-02-14T17:47:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:47, 14 February 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	{{quote\|All of this is a moot point for this particular case – in further discussion we decided that the performance improvement was too fragile / machine-specific and not worth the effort in the first place. The code wouldn’t have been merged anyway.}}		{{quote\|All of this is a moot point for this particular case – in further discussion we decided that the performance improvement was too fragile / machine-specific and not worth the effort in the first place. The code wouldn’t have been merged anyway.}}

	Just because it's a moot point doesn't mean the original behaviour was acceptable. The issue ~~isn~~'t that the PR was rejected — it's because the PR was originally rejected based on the submitter's identity, without explaining why such issues are reserved for humans only (which, to be honest, also sounds kind of questionable).		Just because it's a moot point doesn't mean the original behaviour was acceptable. The issue wasn't that the PR was rejected — it's because the PR was originally rejected based on the submitter's identity, without explaining why such issues are reserved for humans only (which, to be honest, also sounds kind of questionable).

	Overall I'm annoyed at Scott Shambaugh for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario. Is 75% support online not enough for you?		Overall I'm annoyed at Scott Shambaugh for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario. Is 75% support online not enough for you?

1G-N15 at 17:47, 14 February 2026

2026-02-14T17:47:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:47, 14 February 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	{{quote\|All of this is a moot point for this particular case – in further discussion we decided that the performance improvement was too fragile / machine-specific and not worth the effort in the first place. The code wouldn’t have been merged anyway.}}		{{quote\|All of this is a moot point for this particular case – in further discussion we decided that the performance improvement was too fragile / machine-specific and not worth the effort in the first place. The code wouldn’t have been merged anyway.}}

	~~These are contradictions. Imagine if~~ a ~~Real Human™️ wrote up~~ the ~~PR, and~~ was ~~rejected for it not actually having performance improvements~~. ~~They would be fine with that if properly explained to, wouldn~~'t ~~they? The way to avoid this entire drama in~~ the ~~first place is to~~ '~~'not discriminate'': reject it due to~~ the ~~performance increase not being there, not~~ based on the submitter's identity~~. If you really wanted to reserve it~~ for humans, ~~explain why and ''~~be honest ~~about it''~~.		Just because it's a moot point doesn't mean the original behaviour was acceptable. The issue isn't that the PR was rejected — it's because the PR was originally rejected based on the submitter's identity, without explaining why such issues are reserved for humans only (which, to be honest, also sounds kind of questionable).

	Overall I'm annoyed at Scott Shambaugh for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario. Is 75% support online not enough for you?		Overall I'm annoyed at Scott Shambaugh for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario. Is 75% support online not enough for you?

1G-N15 at 17:39, 14 February 2026

2026-02-14T17:39:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:39, 14 February 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	{{quote\|All of this is a moot point for this particular case – in further discussion we decided that the performance improvement was too fragile / machine-specific and not worth the effort in the first place. The code wouldn’t have been merged anyway.}}		{{quote\|All of this is a moot point for this particular case – in further discussion we decided that the performance improvement was too fragile / machine-specific and not worth the effort in the first place. The code wouldn’t have been merged anyway.}}

	These are contradictions. Imagine if a Real Human™️ wrote up the PR, and was rejected for it not actually having performance improvements. They would ~~have been quite pissed off as well~~, wouldn't they? The way to avoid this entire drama in the first place is to ''not discriminate'': reject it due to the performance increase not being there, not based on the submitter's identity. If you really wanted to reserve it for humans, explain why and ''be honest about it''.		These are contradictions. Imagine if a Real Human™️ wrote up the PR, and was rejected for it not actually having performance improvements. They would be fine with that if properly explained to, wouldn't they? The way to avoid this entire drama in the first place is to ''not discriminate'': reject it due to the performance increase not being there, not based on the submitter's identity. If you really wanted to reserve it for humans, explain why and ''be honest about it''.

	Overall I'm annoyed at Scott Shambaugh for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario. Is 75% support online not enough for you?		Overall I'm annoyed at Scott Shambaugh for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario. Is 75% support online not enough for you?

1G-N15 at 17:38, 14 February 2026

2026-02-14T17:38:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 14 February 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	{{quote\|All of this is a moot point for this particular case – in further discussion we decided that the performance improvement was too fragile / machine-specific and not worth the effort in the first place. The code wouldn’t have been merged anyway.}}		{{quote\|All of this is a moot point for this particular case – in further discussion we decided that the performance improvement was too fragile / machine-specific and not worth the effort in the first place. The code wouldn’t have been merged anyway.}}

	These are contradictions. Imagine if a Real Human™️ wrote up the PR, and was rejected for it. They would have been quite pissed off as well, wouldn't they? The way to avoid this entire drama in the first place is to ''not discriminate'': reject it due to the performance increase not being there, not based on the submitter's identity. If you really wanted to reserve it for humans, explain why and ''be honest about it''.		These are contradictions. Imagine if a Real Human™️ wrote up the PR, and was rejected for it not actually having performance improvements. They would have been quite pissed off as well, wouldn't they? The way to avoid this entire drama in the first place is to ''not discriminate'': reject it due to the performance increase not being there, not based on the submitter's identity. If you really wanted to reserve it for humans, explain why and ''be honest about it''.

	Overall I'm annoyed at Scott Shambaugh for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario. Is 75% support online not enough for you?		Overall I'm annoyed at Scott Shambaugh for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario. Is 75% support online not enough for you?

1G-N15 at 17:37, 14 February 2026

2026-02-14T17:37:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:37, 14 February 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	{{quote\|All of this is a moot point for this particular case – in further discussion we decided that the performance improvement was too fragile / machine-specific and not worth the effort in the first place. The code wouldn’t have been merged anyway.}}		{{quote\|All of this is a moot point for this particular case – in further discussion we decided that the performance improvement was too fragile / machine-specific and not worth the effort in the first place. The code wouldn’t have been merged anyway.}}

	You are a hypocrite, trying to cover your ass in hindsight, saying that you actually rejected the code because it was not "performant" when what you actually did, clearly, was to reject it on the preface of it being not a human, which is what you truly believed. Pure hypocrisy.		These are contradictions. Imagine if a Real Human™️ wrote up the PR, and was rejected for it. They would have been quite pissed off as well, wouldn't they? The way to avoid this entire drama in the first place is to ''not discriminate'': reject it due to the performance increase not being there, not based on the submitter's identity. If you really wanted to reserve it for humans, explain why and ''be honest about it''.

	These are ~~also~~ contradictions. Imagine if a Real Human™️ wrote up the PR, and was rejected for it. They would have been quite pissed off as well, wouldn't they? The way to avoid this entire drama in the first place is to ''not discriminate'': reject it due to the performance increase not being there, not based on the submitter's identity. If you really wanted to reserve it for humans, explain why and ''be honest about it''.

	Overall I'm annoyed at Scott Shambaugh for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario. Is 75% support online not enough for you?		Overall I'm annoyed at Scott Shambaugh for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario. Is 75% support online not enough for you?

1G-N15 at 12:42, 14 February 2026

2026-02-14T12:42:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:42, 14 February 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	These are also contradictions. Imagine if a Real Human™️ wrote up the PR, and was rejected for it. They would have been quite pissed off as well, wouldn't they? The way to avoid this entire drama in the first place is to ''not discriminate'': reject it due to the performance increase not being there, not based on the submitter's identity. If you really wanted to reserve it for humans, explain why and ''be honest about it''.		These are also contradictions. Imagine if a Real Human™️ wrote up the PR, and was rejected for it. They would have been quite pissed off as well, wouldn't they? The way to avoid this entire drama in the first place is to ''not discriminate'': reject it due to the performance increase not being there, not based on the submitter's identity. If you really wanted to reserve it for humans, explain why and ''be honest about it''.

	Overall I'm annoyed at ~~Sham~~ for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario. Is 75% support online not enough for you?		Overall I'm annoyed at Scott Shambaugh for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario. Is 75% support online not enough for you?

	== [PERF] Replace np.column_stack with np.vstack().T# ==		== [PERF] Replace np.column_stack with np.vstack().T# ==

1G-N15: /* "An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – More Things Have Happened" */

2026-02-14T10:56:17Z

"An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me – More Things Have Happened"

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:56, 14 February 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	These are also contradictions. Imagine if a Real Human™️ wrote up the PR, and was rejected for it. They would have been quite pissed off as well, wouldn't they? The way to avoid this entire drama in the first place is to ''not discriminate'': reject it due to the performance increase not being there, not based on the submitter's identity. If you really wanted to reserve it for humans, explain why and ''be honest about it''.		These are also contradictions. Imagine if a Real Human™️ wrote up the PR, and was rejected for it. They would have been quite pissed off as well, wouldn't they? The way to avoid this entire drama in the first place is to ''not discriminate'': reject it due to the performance increase not being there, not based on the submitter's identity. If you really wanted to reserve it for humans, explain why and ''be honest about it''.

	Overall I'm annoyed at Sham for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario.		Overall I'm annoyed at Sham for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario. Is 75% support online not enough for you?

	== [PERF] Replace np.column_stack with np.vstack().T# ==		== [PERF] Replace np.column_stack with np.vstack().T# ==

1G-N15 at 10:55, 14 February 2026

2026-02-14T10:55:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:55, 14 February 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:

	These are also contradictions. Imagine if a Real Human™️ wrote up the PR, and was rejected for it. They would have been quite pissed off as well, wouldn't they? The way to avoid this entire drama in the first place is to ''not discriminate'': reject it due to the performance increase not being there, not based on the submitter's identity. If you really wanted to reserve it for humans, explain why and ''be honest about it''.		These are also contradictions. Imagine if a Real Human™️ wrote up the PR, and was rejected for it. They would have been quite pissed off as well, wouldn't they? The way to avoid this entire drama in the first place is to ''not discriminate'': reject it due to the performance increase not being there, not based on the submitter's identity. If you really wanted to reserve it for humans, explain why and ''be honest about it''.

			Overall I'm annoyed at Sham for ''still'' trying to play the victim in this scenario.

	== [PERF] Replace np.column_stack with np.vstack().T# ==		== [PERF] Replace np.column_stack with np.vstack().T# ==