Afaik many of the people who were on board to help start gem.coop have stepped back after the recent controversies with Andre Arko, at this point I don’t think it will ever be anything more than a ruby gems mirror
Genuine question: how do you take something which you have already been paying for?
They removed other maintainers access to their AWS account, and one of them had allegedly taken a screenshot of the root password from a password manager and logged in a few hours later and changed the root password to lock the legal owners out. Most of the community has turned on the maintainer who did that, it was extremely childish behaviour.
> They removed other maintainers access to their AWS account, and one of them had allegedly taken a screenshot of the root password from a password manager
Inaccurate:
> Ruby Central also had not removed me as an “owner” of the Ruby Central GitHub Organization. They also had not rotated any of the credentials shared across the operational team using the RubyGems 1Password account.
> I believe Ruby Central confused themselves into thinking the “Ruby Central” 1Password account was used by operators, and they did revoke my access there. However, that 1Password account was not used by the open source team of RubyGems.org service operators. Instead, we used the “RubyGems” 1Password account, which was full of operational credentials. Ruby Central did not remove me from the “RubyGems” 1Password account, even as of today. https://andre.arko.net/2025/10/09/the-rubygems-security-inci...
Ruby Central didn't realize that they hadn't actually revoked any access to the previous maintainers (and that they didn't have the updated root AWS credentials) until two weeks later when André notified them.
It's been a while but if memory serves me correctly the controversy at that time was actually about him unilaterally deciding that people at basecamp shouldn't be talking about politics in off-topic slack channels after people started trying to organize support for something he didn't agree with. IIRC something like 1/3 of the company quit at that time
Specifically, it was in a meeting called by Jason Fried to address people who were concerned about the ongoing existence of an internal list of "funny customer names" (which by all accounts was extremely racist), in which Ryan Singer (who had reportedly previously posted a fair bit of politically right-wing content on internal forums -- those were all deleted when the "no politics at work" policy was rolled out) repeatedly asserted that white supremacy/privilege did not exist (he then resigned).
In the aftermath, DHH dug through old chat logs to find a time in the past when one of the people complaining about the list participated in a discussion about same without complaint, and posted it in a way that was visible to everyone saying that their prior participation meant that their current complaint was invalid.
Then they rolled out the no-politics-at-work policy in this post dated April 26 2021 -- I would encourage anyone interested in the specifics to read through the various versions and edits of this post made in the week following, all without noting that it was being actively changed: https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5
Am I the only one who feels like discussing politics at work is inappropriate? While I'm not apolitical, I appreciate having a space where the constant bombardment of politics is momentarily absent. It's refreshing to focus on work without the need for political discourse.
The problem is that everything is political: if politics don't impact you, you are living a very privileged life.
On the one hand, I do agree that endless debating over relatively minor ideological differences is pointless, and only going to lead to time-wasting and resentment. I certainly have the same desire for some peace and quiet, and being able to focus solely on my work.
On the other hand, we live in a society where questions like "am I allowed to use the office bathroom" have been made political, and where your coworkers are genuinely worried about whether they'll get arrested and deported from the country for no reason whatsoever during next week's sprint planning. Their issues are real and by definition require the business as an entity to respond to political developments.
You might have the luxury of putting your head in the sand and pretending they don't exist, but that's not going to magically solve your coworkers' problems. Unless the company wants to restrict its hiring to the absolutely minuscule group of people who will never be impacted by politics, it'll have to engage in some level of political discussion.
My understanding is that building subways in LA is costlier and more labor-intensive than in a lot of the cities you mentioned, but the subway system is currently undergoing a massive expansion in LA.
The main difficulties are the fault lines: Subway lines have to be meticulously planned to avoid the dozens of faults as well as other areas that are susceptible to major movement.
I thought you were just being petty until I tried to read it. There is so just much context switching without any clues at all to the reader, it is really jarring.
A good friend of mine recently was able to purchase a home in the Bay Area (we're in our late 20's). It has been absolutely fascinating the last few months watching his views towards housing supply do a complete 180 from "We need to build more housing" to "If they can't afford it maybe living here isn't for them".
Correct. But none of those entities are controlling transportation infrastructure in the United States. They're manufacturing vehicles or parts necessary for those vehicles, or controlling the air traffic on a completely separate continent.
The law's intent (not saying that I agree with it) is to ensure that the air transit infrastructure in the United States is controlled by U.S. citizens, not that every piece of transportation equipment worldwide is manufactured and controlled by the U.S.
I'm not sure I follow. I just sat here with my 6S trying various ways of holding it for a good 10 minutes, and I can't figure out for the life of me what you're talking about when you say that you have to hold it lower to double tap the home button than you do to firmly press it. If anything, I find the exact opposite to be true: I need to support the bottom of the phone less when I am simply double-tapping on the home button, while I need to have more support towards the bottom of the phone if I want to firmly press it.
This seems to make sense, intuitively, as well: I'm applying way more pressure to the bottom of the phone with a firm press of the home button than I do when I lightly tap it, even if I have to tap it twice.
I think hand size is important to consider here. In order to reach the majority of my 6S screen I have my hand close to the centre of the phone. If I try to double tap the home button with my thumb it cannot reach unless I move my hand further down which involves readjusting my entire grip and I often come close to dropping the device.
