zlacker

>>elikog+(OP)
> Anduril, a military contractor that uses NixOS, has repeatedly attempted to become a sponsor of NixCon, which did not go over well with the community

Something similar happened in the Haskell community, where some people called for Anduril job postings to be removed.

Nix is a software project, not a social movement. The goals of Nix are entirely separate from how the software is used.

I really like Coinbase's statement that is is mission focused (https://www.coinbase.com/en-ca/blog/coinbase-is-a-mission-fo...). Anything that isn't directly related to its mission is out-of-scope. I wish the same was true about software projects like Nix.

If you care about the way your software is used, then by all means, say it in the license! Of course, such software won't get used much.

>>cosmic+Gc
There are a lot of people who will find their workplace being singularly "mission focused" a good thing, but 5% of Coinbase's staff announced that they'd be leaving within one working week of that post[1], and others followed shortly after. I think that shows that in a corporate environment, it's not possible to retain all of the best staff if you're very publicly burying your head in the sand with regards to social issues - particularly in the immediate aftermath of the George Floyd protests.

The author talks about the productivity losses rising from social-issue disagreement in the workplace, but it's rare that you can point to a press release from a C-suite employee and say "this specific document caused one in twenty staff members to leave immediately". The productivity destruction at Coinbase from that press release was enormous.

https://www.coinbase.com/en-gb/blog/a-follow-up-to-coinbase-...

>>Shrezz+Ln
No matter how smart or skilled they are, people who spend an inordinate amount of time arguing politics (and dragging others into it) at work are by definition not "the best staff".

Having a narrow mission focus is the only way to retain your actual best staff.

>>lliama+fK
Not necessarily the case. Consider the possibility that strongly-held political beliefs correlate with software engineering skill, in which case it could easily be that a politically-active but superior engineer comes out ahead despite "wasting" some time on political issues. Yes, they're not as productive as a hypothetical engineer with the same skillset and no political beliefs - but that hypothetical engineer may not exist. Alternatively, consider that forty hours of dedicated software engineering may be beyond the capability of the human brain and that political arguments happen during what would be classified as rest and relaxation time if not for labor standards developed for physical laborers and factory workers in the 1930s. Alternatively, consider that most people work better with motivation, the belief that you are doing good is among the healthiest and most powerful motivators available, that maintaining such a belief requires continuous effort, that such effort would likely involve discussion, and that that discussion would almost necessarily happen at work. I'm not claiming that any of these scenarios are the case. I'm simply pointing out that they are possible and plausible, and thus it is not necessarily the case that an employee arguing politics at work is underperforming, either in relation to their own potential or relative to others.