Nony Dutton

`rb-slippers`. Tries finding the file from the relative path twice then looks in `$HOME` on the third try.

😭😭😭 Hope you're having a wonderful time with Bruno and Melissa!

You're a wizard, Marco!

Also please don't restrict bundler and ruby versions like `bundler < 3.0` and `required_ruby_version < 4.0` 🙏

For Rails folks out there: should Rails have a built-in way to override `Warning.warn` to use the Rails logger (if defined) instead of `$stderr`? I assume someone must be already doing that but perhaps there's a reason why we shouldn't.

🔮

The Herb Linter by @marcoroth.dev just works™

It caught both the fact that we're missing double quotes and that we've used `<% %>` instead of `<%= %>`.

And it automatically produced GitHub-compatible output 👌

Not that much in practice, I guess I'm quibbling over situations like:

```
return if hash[:foo] == false
```

But to @fxn.bsky.social's original point if we're strictly talking about a boolean then bool-ish doesn't make much sense.

Gotcha, makes sense.

I just think there's an important distinction between true and `truthy`! Because when we say true how are we to know which true we mean? The logical true or the object true? :)

Sorry for the pedantry but, because everything is an object, I think of something as `true` if it shares the same object_id as `true`.

`nil`, `true`, and `false` have a different object_id. I think of `nil` as falsey though because, while it's not literally `false`, it operates like false.

Maybe to turn this around a bit to ask: isn't `nil` kind-of-false or falsey but not strictly `false`?

That example is probably a bit trickier because so many things in Ruby return `nil`, safe operations making it especially worse.

I appreciate your post; it has some pieces of the situation I definitely didn't know.

We definitely do need more companies like Shopify to contribute to the wider Ruby community. I'm sure Shopify would be the first to agree, really. It would be good for all of us.

I'm working on it... 🤞

"Enjoy having your tests run in the same order every time unless you specify --rand"!

What an unfortunate mess.

(Sorry for the rather diplomatic response on my part.)

I'm trying to understand if this is a permanent split or not. I'd prefer that we had one gem server that the whole community was on board with but maybe that ship has sailed.

Sorry to ask the, perhaps, difficult question: are you able to clarify your current relationship with Ruby Central? Their communication has been vague; I'm not sure who they're discussing operator agreements with.

You may not be able to talk about it, which is fine.

I wouldn't call Mondawmin suburban.

I'm not trying to change the minds of people who are too scared to move to Baltimore though; they can stay away. 😅

The community also has the right to push back against whatever they decide though, which is perhaps your point.

Having worked at non-profits and served on boards, those look like pretty innocuous non-profit minutes to me.

I think RubyTogether, or any non-profit, has a duty to consider its financial future and options, including paying staff/maintainers.

Actually, I'd rather not debate a post I haven't read yet.

I'll end just end with: I think calling the ad "grotesque" does more harm than good. I struggle to see what possible "good" there can be and, if any, there's probably a more effective, empathetic way to go about it.

At the end of the day is an ad featuring an obese person really a problem? We ignore things all the time.

Do we agree that some things are important and shouldn't be ignored? I don't see how this ad matters.

What was @tekin.co.uk criticizing in DHH's post? I haven't read it.

Isn't the truth from someone's perspective an opinion?

And I haven't read the article, I can't comment.

I do think calling someone on an ad grotesque just because you don't like their body type is pretty messed up. Let people live their lives if they're not hurting anyone. Just my opinion though.

I didn't see his post but I live in Copenhagen. I wasn't bothered by the ad, who gives a shit? Calling it "grotesque" is a pretty glib and harmful response to it. Don't like the ad? Ignore it. If people really cared about public health they'd be criticizing alcohol ads. Let people live their lives.

"Grotesque" is an opinion, it's not objective truth, and it's not a very nice way to engage with people, especially if the intent is to "help" them become healthier.

If the person in the toothpaste ad has rotten teeth then it doesn't seem like the toothpaste works, it's not a demonstration of the product.

The person in the ad is wearing the underwear. You see the product in action. They clearly thought the ad would help them sell to someone. I guess not you.

Are hurt feelings the only negative outcome? Are you sure then it's objectively more harmful?

And what's your point here? You care so much about the person's health that you call them grotesque to... help them? It seems to me like you'd just rather not see them at all.

"There are certain harms I can think of from pretending an obese body is healthy."

We see ads for alcohol all the time, those aren't healthy and deviates from the point. I think you're avoiding my question here:

Are there harms you can think of by calling someone's body grotesque?

"Ads sell the ideal dream of what we might become". Whose dream? Whose ideal? Ads are there to sell product. Maybe you don't want the product but, as I said, I imagine you weren't the target audience.

"Probably also use toothpaste" is not in any way the same as "hey look at this person literally wearing our product that we're selling". The comparison does not hold up.