Linus on "acting professionally" - <AUTHOR> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2 <comment><USER3> Linus is dead wrong here. When he says acting professionally means "fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords", he's attacking a straw man: none of that behaviour is professional, and to say that professional behaviour must degenerate to that behaviour is a stretch at best.

Aggression is not warranted in a professional environment; neither overt (a la LKML) or covert (passive). Lying is not warranted under any circumstance. Being professional means not calling people names.

All of this stuff is what you get taught in kindergarten, it's not rocket science. Mental abuse is no better than physical abuse, and given I don't buy that hitting developers with sticks makes them "better" somehow I'm also not going to buy into clue-by-four beatings being any better.

<comment><USER4> You've obviously never worked in an office, or you have taken a big step away from reality.

The things Linus mentions are what happens as a result of supposed "professionalism".

People are emotional, reactionary creatures with very different needs.

These people are kernel developers, not 4 year olds. If they commit code that is fucking stupid, they should be called fucking stupid for it. As was shown on a recent post - Linus reverted to swearing in his native tongue because English wasn't sufficiently rude enough for him, and those who let the fuckup slip through all admitted their fault and identified that they would take steps to ensure it didn't happen again.

<comment><USER5> this is a false dichotomy.

it's possible to be succint, harsh, and directly to the point without swearing or being abusive. for example, off the top of my head:

"stephen, this code is riddled with basic errors and is completely unacceptable. please fix a, b, and c immediately and know that if you make mistakes like this again, your contributions will no longer be welcome."

versus:

"stephen, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU??!?! seriously, a FUCKING JUNIOR DEV would not make mistakes like this. why are you wasting my time with this FUCKING BULLSHIT? FIX IT NOW OR YOU'RE FIRED!"

imagine in both cases the person writing to you has only a professional relationship (ie, is not a friend who has the type of relationship with you where the 2nd paragraph would be an establish, half-joking form of communication)

<comment><USER6> In my experience, the closer you are to action the more swearing (sales, press, front-line dev) and the polite stuff is more for the office bureaucrats who aren't critical to the success of the organization. There's something refreshingly blunt and urgent about the 2nd case.

(Edit: My experience includes Fortune 100 in consumer tech and finance)

<comment><USER7> > There's something refreshingly blunt and urgent about the 2nd case.

In this scenario Stephen has been hired to write code/produce something, I'll go all-Marxist on this and say he was hired to produce plus-value. He was not hired to be sworn at, no matter how good or bad his code/work might be, and this is why swearing directly at people is unprofessional.

As an aside, I'm surprised at the people who say that swearing to other people's face is "manly" (or something of the sorts). In the part of the world that I live if you swear someone directly in the face you'd better be prepared for a physical fight or worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You don't get to tell Linus what is or isn't professional. He has led one of the most important human endeavours of the last hundred years. However he decides to get that done is his business.

Call it rude or impolite, call it thoughtless or insulting, but don't call it unprofessional. If there's one thing that nobody can dispute, it's that Linus knows how to get shit done and knows how to run an effective team.

There's nothing stopping anyone from mounting a coup d'etat. Anyone can fork the kernel, build a team of developers and usurp Linus. They'll struggle to build that team, because Linus is deeply trusted with the stewardship of the kernel, in no small part because of his "unprofessional" behaviour.

<comment><USER9> So, basically your position is "If you don't like it, get out". I'm not sure this view is productive in any kind of discussion. Personally, I think the amount of abusive speech & profanity in the tech-field is way too much. I assume(incorrectly?) that it's because it's mostly male and a lot of men like to do that to each other. I personally don't do it to anyone and don't like it being directed at me.

<comment><USER10> Too much profanity? Well butter my ass and call me fucking skittles!

So you want to censor everyone who doesn't buy into your flowery child talk? Fuck that. Cursing is a perfectly fine means of setting emphasis and I sure as shitpissfuckcuntcocksuckermotherfuckertits am not going to surrender that just so some shithead I don't even care about can jack off to his or her little control fantasies.

You don't like that? I couldn't really give less of a fuck; You're supposed to be a tech person, write a few sloc to filter profanity out or something but don't get on my nerves with that shit.

And yes, that _was_ offensive and I am fully aware of that. That was also exactly what I was going for.

I have to concede that abuse is never a good thing, but since you seem to be seeing profanity as a problem I'm not sure we could agree on what exactly constitutes an 'abuse'.

EDIT:

It was (correctly) pointed out that censoring communication was not mentioned or even necessarily implied in smtddr's comment so this might not apply to said comment. That said, this still reflects aptly what I think about censoring away profanity.

<comment><USER11> Hacker News: Where IQ and intelligence trumps being pleasant. So many tech types are assholes.

<comment><USER12> You'd not take intelligence over 'being pleasant'? I tend to enjoy the company of an intelligent asshole more than that of a 'pleasant' idiot any day.

<comment><USER13> I can spend good, fulfilling and interesting times with a 'pleasant' idiot friend. Intelligent assholes, on the other hand, besides some intellectual discussion in their field of expertise, I would pass on their company. But, since this is about people within the workspace, I guess the intelligent asshole would, sometimes, be preferable to some polite but less intelligent person. The other one would still be an asshole, though. Plus, I don't think Linus would get away with this crap outside of electronic mailing lists and kernel stuff.

<comment><USER14> Whether if "profanity" is involved in the speech or not, if someone is prone to blowing up in a rage of anger, I do not enjoy being around such a person. Depending on the details, it might be worth understanding what makes them upset and trying to avoid it, but it seems to me that a lot of the time some people are just overly angry.

I recently witnessed some programmer going to town, blasting out a supply cabinet. Hurling rage and profane insults at a supply cabinet just seems... uncalled for, to me. My personal evaluation is that the guy needs to learn to not let little things bother him so much. Though I doubt the supply cabinet was offended.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Torvalds seems to be a real bully. And it hurts me to see all these responses justifying his behaviour, as if this is the way it must be.

Just look at this message: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1TUvG3J...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1TUvG3J3JHkJ:marc.info/%3Fl%3Dlinux- kernel%26m%3D135628421403144%26w%3D2+http://marc.info/%3Fl%3Dlinux- kernel%26m%3D135628421403144%26w%3D2&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=at)

There is no justification for this kind of behaviour. If anybody else behaved this way, they would be sent to a psychiatrist. But apparently since it's Linus Torvalds, he's just being a little "harsh" and that's necessary to get his point across.

<comment><USER12> Which part of his behaviour in this email is unacceptable in particular? Let's look at it:

> Mauro, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Okay, so he tells Mauro to stop talking because he apparently thinks that what Mauro was saying is wrong. To make very sure that what he wrote is read, he puts in fancy caps and some light swearing, which, however, is not directed at anyone in particular. A more polite version of this would have been 'No.', but I don't see any bullying/abuse.

> It's a bug alright - in the kernel. How long have you been a maintainer? And > you _still_ haven't learnt the first rule of kernel maintenance?

It appears that this guy violated some rather important rule of kernel development which he should have known given his experience. Again, no name- calling or directed swearing whatsoever, however. Again, a more polite version could be 'We don't break userspace, and you know that.', which doesn't look particularly different to me.

> If a change results in user programs breaking, it's a bug in the kernel. We > never EVER blame the user programs. How hard can this be to understand?

I would wager the guess that similar problems pop up from time to time and Linus is getting tired of seeing them all the time, hence his question. Again, no name-calling at all, also no abuse, but a (justified, though maybe slightly aggressive) question.

> [technical details]

> Shut up, Mauro. And I don't _ever_ want to hear that kind of obvious garbage > and idiocy from a kernel maintainer again. Seriously.

Again, no name-calling of the maintainer, but only an assessment of what he wrote, which, to Linus, appears very wrong. Again, more politely, this would have been 'No.'

> […] And you've shown yourself to not be competent in this issue

This is the first personal 'attack', however, it is still only aimed at the competence rather than person, and if the above holds true, is yet again entirely justified. Is this the line with which you had a problem?

Linus then goes on to explain again why this particular idea was 'TOTAL CRAP', with some more colourful adjectives regarding the patch. Again, no abuse.

> The fact that you then try to make _excuses_ for breaking user space, and > blaming some external program that _used_ to work, is just shameful. It's > not how we work.

This could be interpreted as somewhat personal, though it likely only means 'I expected better and am disappointed in you'.

> Fix your f*cking "compliance tool", because it is obviously broken. And fix > your approach to kernel programming.

Note that the 'fucking' is for the 'compliance tool', which apparently is broken; the comment regarding kernel programming is again directed at their competence rather than person, so I don't see any particular abuse there, either.

The remaining question is then, why didn't Linus just write something along the lines of 'No. / Don't break userspace. / No. / No.'? Likely because then someone would have called him out on not going into details or because they got the same email regarding three small mistakes and a question and now don't know whether this issue is a similar 'small mistake' or something more problematic.

<comment><USER16> You make it sound as if it was a perfectly normal tone to use... Do you talk like that to, say, your parents?

<comment><USER12> I usually don't swear, but rather ignore people quickly and/or make my disregard for them or what they say very clear in a 'civilised' tone; furthermore I tend to avoid getting emotional.

That, of course, doesn't mean I want others not to swear, not everyone has to behave exactly like me for me to be happy :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> [http://marc.info/?l=linux- kernel&m=137390362508794&w=2](http://marc.info/?l=linux- kernel&m=137390362508794&w=2)

This is the start of the thread. It is pretty obvious that no one is being serious about actual violence. It's just banter. Harmless (and not at all unhealty) banter.

The type of communication in the LKML has always been straight to the point and without unnecessary diplomacy. Sometimes it reads as assertiveness, sometimes it reads as rudeness. The point is that it works.

Every community has its "rules". Those rules are made by its members, _all_ its members. If you disagree, act differently. If you are right and the others are wrong, they will follow you.

Asking for "professional behavior" when others are just acting normally is whining for politically correctness, which is pretty annoying and a sure way to _not_ change anything.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, that's very useful context. Sarah Sharp is not Linus. She doesn't get to to dictate the tone of the mailing list, and was obviously trying to publicly shame/attack Linus. One doesn't have to endorse Linus' management strategy to grant that (a) it works and (b) it works without Sarah Sharp's input.

<comment><USER19> The fact that it works does not mean that it can't be improved.

And a context that scares people off is not one that I would say "works".

<comment><USER17> But it's debatable that it actually scares anyone off...

This is not about grinding newcomers to the LKML, this is about the type of communication between people that have known each other for quite some time, and are well aware of each other's technical "sensibilities".

True, the LKML is also known to be a bit harsh to newcomers. But only in a sense that newcomers are often unaware of the high technical standards that the kernel abides to, and often resent the level of criticism or suggestions for change that they receive.

<comment><USER19> I would not want to work in an environment where mistakes are punished by a shouting tyrant. Even if I know I should not make those mistakes.

It does not matter that he does this to people he knows well and perhaps can even handle this kind of verbal abuse. He does this publicly to the entire world which is not acceptable in my book.

<comment><USER17> Being blunt and talking hard over email does not a shouting tyrant make.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> In a long term relationship, I don't like subtlety and politeness. It just leads to emotional amplification on the receiver side - the receiver just learns to "turn up the volume" on anything said to try find the true signal. (Was that praise just a bit faint this time, hiding some kind of displeasure with my work? What was that slight smile about?)

Some of the most offensive put-downs come as faint praise from people who are just _so_ convinced that they're always reasonable to the nth degree. I'd rather someone come out flailing so I can defend myself and my work, with both of us being wrong (and open about it) from time to time so it's not something unusual or noteworthy.

<comment><USER17> I fully agree.

Some people call this _being transparent_. Let people see what you really feel, and let them be sure that when they see your approval, they can be damn sure you are really approving and not just faking it.

Now, there is a difference between being transparent or honest and being aggressive or rude, and I don't approve of the latter. But that interpretation depends on the people involved and their relationship: what may be considered rude by a third party or someone from a different culture, may be considered normal and acceptable by the ones involved.

If you would take offense by something that you say/said to others, they you are being rude. Otherwise, you are being honest. Pretty simple rule.

But sometimes people are just so used to politically correct (faked) behavior that they take transparency for rudeness, and honesty for impoliteness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Show some intellectual curiosity, people. The same way some hackers get mad at others' unwillingness to dig into math/tech, many of you are refusing to put _just a little bit of effort_ into being civil. It can be difficult to separate what's actually factually making you upset from the basal urge to express raw ire by cursing and belittling, but it becomes easier with practice. Just like math, or any other intelligence based skill.

Once you put some practice in, you can even do it with the same level of brevity as a immature tirade. I have immense respect for Linus and his accomplishments, but he frankly doesn't deserve a medal or apologetics for his refusal to increase his interpersonal intelligence. There is a higher level of humanity to aspire to than yelling at one another like cavemen OR Machiavellian passive-aggressive faux-politeness.

When I taught high school in Baltimore, I taught a lot of students whose most basic frame for interpersonal interaction was might-makes-right yelling and cursing. One of my goals was to demonstrate that no matter what, it's possible to conduct yourself without devolving to that level. It admittedly made it difficult for me to get my points across sometimes, but on the whole, I think I taught my students a very valuable lesson--that there _is_ an alternative. In the end, there was a certain level on which my students always trusted me to treat them with human respect.

I expect more from a professional than a high school student. Being "politically incorrect" can make it easier to express your emotions, but it can also cause deeply held long-term resentments that manifest in unpredictable and damaging ways. Crying foul about political correctness is just making excuses about refusing to put in the effort to see things from others' points of view. And it also refuses to acknowledge that you yourself have your hot buttons that will set you off as well. And when emotional buttons are getting pressed, intellectual messages are getting lost.

<comment><USER22> "There is a higher level of humanity to aspire to than yelling at one another like cavemen OR Machiavellian passive-aggressive faux-politeness."

Faux-politeness is exactly what Linus is criticising here and he definitely doesn't engage in it. And there is no evidence of him yelling like a caveman at this person. Are you referring to some other example? I'd like to see that. The only time I've seen him yelling and fully throttling someone is when they appear to really need a kick in the ass (multiple horrific offenses).

<comment><USER21> I'm referring to faux-politeness as Linus's strawman alternative to being rude. It's a false dichotomy.

And when I talk about behaving like a caveman, I should be clear that I'm generalizing the behavior he's trying to legitimize. I don't claim to have an in depth knowledge of his behavior outside of the handful of times things he's written have popped up here or on Slashdot.

For all I know, these are isolated incidents. But even if that's the case, I think it's behavior he should be working on improving, instead of rationalizing. Whether it's coming from him, Steve Jobs, the former Rutgers basketball coach, or whoever else, I simply don't believe that being rude or bullying is optimal or morally acceptable. And I'm not some softie hippie who thinks we should all argue with kid gloves. It's quite possible to be severe and explicit with your thoughts, without being insulting, either to the person or their work.

<comment><USER22> "I think it's behavior he should be working on improving"

Why? There are plenty of things that people can work toward improving. He doesn't see his behaviour as something that requires improvement.

You think rudeness is morally unacceptable. He doesn't. You are free to disagree and never work with him if you so choose. But you can't legitimately claim authority on _the better way_ based solely on personal opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Linus gets to do what he wants to do because he was extraordinarily successful in his field from a very young age. In other words, he's spoiled.

If he had to "work for a living," ie: work in a job he needed, rather than a job he wanted, he would likely have had a job which enforced behavioral norms. He probably wouldn't have been as happy, but he likely would more polite.

One of the things schools do is to socialize us to maintain civility. This only works for some people. It's clear to me that Linus is rather incapable of realizing he's being a douche, and even if he does realize it, he's not interested in changing for other people. And since it's Linus' sandbox, you either deal with it or go home.

However, the main point of his argument is valid. People are different and we should align ourselves with people that support our preferred way of working. If you can't work with Linus directly because he's a douche, then you better find an insulating support structure, or find another project.

<comment><USER24> And yet another comment chiding Torvalds for not maintaining civility... while insulting him ('being a douche').

You talk about being 'incapable of realising' \- perhaps review your own comment.

<comment><USER25> isn't any form of criticism an insult? Plus we're talking about Torvald's attitude, hard to avoid personal attacks when we're talking about the person himself.

<comment><USER24> Not at all. Constructive criticism isn't insulting by definition.

Calling someone a douche isn't constructive criticism. And there's a difference between attacking a person and attacking the actions - and look at what Torvalds does. Even his famous "shut the fuck up Mauro" comment is telling Mauro that his behaviour is inappropriate. He's not saying 'Mauro, you are a douche' directly insulting the guy, he's saying "I'm angry with you because you're breaking our tenets", talking about his actions and behaviour, and he even finishes up with expecting Mauro to fix the technical issue - <USER2> tacit acknowledgment of capability.

<comment><USER23> Calling someone a douche is constructive criticism. If I call you a douche, it means you're acting in self-centered, antagonistic manner that aggravating the relationship.

Of course some people don't care about that. People don't fix things they don't feel are broken.

<comment><USER24> Rubbish. Constructive criticism requires input on specific paths to improve the situation. Telling someone they're a douche is just applying a generic insult. It's not even criticism of any kind, as douche is nonspecific.

<comment><USER23> >Rubbish.

You're acting in self-centered, antagonistic manner that is aggravating the relationship.

<comment><USER24> I also think exactly the same thing of you, given that you think I'm stupid enough to believe that being called a douche is 'constructive criticism'. It doesn't require profanity to insult someone.

<comment><USER23> If you're offended by the word douche to describe a jerk, then we occupy different cultures.

Similarly, if someone thinks being called a "jerk" is an insult devoid of constructive criticism, then they're likely either intentionally obdurate or they lack the self-awareness to identify their failings.

I'm perfectly aware of my ability to be a douche. I just choose who to be a jerk to. Strangers on the internet: possibly; colleagues I work with: not so much.

<comment><USER24> I'm not offended by it in the slightest. I swear like a trooper. My issue is that you're trying to pass off a generic insult as 'constructive criticism'. What is insulting is that you think I'm stupid enough to believe it - it's not the words you're using, but the underlying context.

It's either that, or you don't actually understand what constructive criticism is.

<comment><USER23> I'm probably stupid for starting this up again, but at the top of the thread, in my first comment, before I call Linus a douche, I spend two paragraphs describing what I think the problem is.

If Linus actually read my HN comment and (a) was offended and (b) wanted constructive criticism, he would see that I believe he is poorly socialized for working in a certain (rather popular) type of work environment. That seems to me pretty constructive. Linus would not be suited for a job in diplomacy, or any other type of relationship-intensive enterprise.

Now, if I just said "Linus is a douche," I'd give you your point.

I already regret starting this up again, because you seem to be committed to your point. But WTF, I had 10 minutes to kill before I pick up my kid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Agreement not to be nasty to people mostly protects people in a weak position. It's a long time since that has been Linus, so it's not surprising he's forgotten the merits of it.

Say 'Sarah Sharp' was hired by her company as a kernel developer. She knows that, if she makes a commit and Linus doesn't like it, he will write up what she has done like it was terrible (rather than slightly careless, or even just different from how he'd do it), and her boss will doubt her competence. Twice, three times, appears on google when he searches for her name... maybe she'll need a new employer...

So Sarah can either throw away her Linux expertise, and go work on BSD for way less money, or live in fear of Linus. Personally, I don't like living in fear. But presumably, she likes renting a house for her kids to live in. So there is nothing she can do except wake up in the night, unable to sleep until she checks the mailing list one last time.

I'm sure Linus doesn't care if she cusses at him. His worst case isn't homelessness.

<comment><USER17> That's a totally ludicrous argument. There are plenty of assholes in the open source world, some of them are even at the helm of pretty significant projects. Linus, however, does not seem to be one of them, merely for the fact that his "abuse" seems to always be accompanied by very strong arguments based on actual facts.

You are suggesting that getting a shake down from Linus is a bad thing. Well, only if you have no arguments of your own to stand upon. Otherwise, it benefits _you_ to even _have_ an argument with Linus (even if you end up on the wrong side - which isn't guaranteed to always be the case).

<comment><USER26> >That's a totally ludicrous argument.

In hindsight yeah. The catastrophic 'could be homeless' stuff was deliberate, and I thought it was a good idea at the time, but it's not realistic.

In tech, things are made by teams, and some people have a lot of power over others. If the others are young, they might be more vulnerable because they would find it harder to up and get work elsewhere, and because they haven't developed belief in their skills yet.

I don't really care about Linus and Sarah. But having been on the wrong end of a dysfunctional senior the odd time, stopping bullying in the workplace is important for productivity and making going to work a nice thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I like Linus - he has character, style and he fights to stay himself no matter how often people want him to change.

Some quotes I liked:

So as far as I'm concerned, the discussion is about "how to work together DESPITE people being different". Not about trying to make everybody please each other.

I'm _also_ not going to buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their normal urges in unnatural ways.

<comment><USER28> I also work in a big office environment in a large company and I tend to agree with Linus. We get all this professional outsorcing and offshoring and use tech that was new in the flower power generation. It's all done very professionally and it results in mind-bogging stupidity. Every single day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> People seem to be mistaken about why most teams accept certain standards. It's not about artificial politeness, it's about trying to get the best out of the team.

Not shouting people down is good because it means that people who are more reserved but who have valuable things to add get their say.

Not calling people stupid is good because generally people working on a project such as this aren't stupid and you're missing a chance to find out what really went wrong (misunderstanding, miscommunication or whatever).

Even if what they have said IS stupid, not abusing people for mistakes is good because abuse is a sub-optimal way of teaching.

Yes modern organisations have taken much of this too far and ended up as insincere, inefficient behemoths, but some of the standards within the community seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water and taking almost gleeful pride in doing so.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'd rather have my feelings hurt in exchange for an honest opinion than to hear worthless words that sound nice. Always.

And I'd always prefer a competent asshole boss to a friendly guy that doesn't know how to do his job.

Personally, I think too much niceness and, by extension, political correctness is bad for honesty, truth, effectiveness and, ultimately, for culture. The culture in the office and the culture as a whole.

We shouldn't expect to go through life with everyone being nice all the time. It's not realistic. Tough love is good. I don't want to live in an environment of friendly bullshit.

And thus I am happy that Linus is the way he is. A very accomplished man that doesn't care about your precious political correctness.

(I assume Steve Jobs was similar in that regard.)

<comment><USER31> I agree, but with a reservation that personalities are different. Someone less sociable (like me) may even confuse extensively sugar-coated criticism for an approval. Those more sophisticated and well-versed in politics would see right through it—and direct criticism may sound insulting to them. (I believe the latter kind isn't very common among programmer folk, but still.)

IMO it's important that a person can position themselves in a company so that they mostly communicate with colleagues who share communication style.

Anyway, Linus is known for his personality even outside Linux kernel development team, so I wonder whether this issue is blown out of proportion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I wish more comments engaged his actual argument. Here, there's a lot of "Torvalds is a jerk and unprofessional" versus "Blunt is good, and screw the PC police talk!" That's not his argument.

Torvalds is saying, "Some people think there SHOULD BE a universal 'professionalism' that 'we' can haggle over in the public sphere and then enforce on bystanders in local contexts" and "Other people think there are just local relationships in groups to be negotiated ad hoc in those local contexts." And he works as though the second statement is more credible.

Saying "we" should be "professional" is actually assuming a bunch of very contestable propositions from the first word. There absolutely ends up being a bullying component when you invent a broad "we", declare other people to be members of it, and then try to enforce norms on that imagined "we".

And I say all this with the caveat that Torvalds is probably too blunt for me. But that doesn't make him wrong.

<comment><USER33> That's a good rhetorical play by Torvalds... But the norms of "professionalism" that Sharp is invoking aren't just arbitrary rules. Of course the specific situation on this mailing list is different from a corporate office. But when Linus semi-jokingly says "I'm in my bedroom wearing a bathrobe, why should I be professional?" it sounds to me like he's trying to evade responsibility for his communicative behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I call bullshit on that entire argument. Assholes will be assholes no matter what the context, and while I don't know Linus personally nor have I worked with him, I can spot his in-defense-of-being-an-asshole argument from a mile away. That's all it is. That entire text can be summarized as "I like to be an asshole sometimes, deal with it or leave".

The people who curse and yell and throw angry hissy fits are the exact same people who infuse work environments with the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords when forced to operate in a professional environment.

If his self-description really is accurate ("I'm not polite, and I get upset easily"), then telling other people "deal with it" is just an asshole move to do, nothing more nothing less. He could stand to become a better person by figuring out why he gets upset so easily and finding ways to either mitigate or work around that deficiency. Because however effective he may be right now, he would be even more effective then.

</comment><comment><USER35> A good quote from Linus in the link is:

> So as far as I'm concerned, the discussion is about "how to work together > DESPITE people being different". Not about trying to make everybody please > each other.

One method of getting people to work together despite people being different is to get everyone to agree to a standard communication protocol when dealing with each other. This is often consider getting everyone to act professionally and in many/most organizations the standard of conduct is enforced from the top down.

It can be enforced from the top down because the people at the top can provide the right mix of incentives and can cull those who do not conform.

In most volunteer communities it can be difficult/undesirable to enforce a detailed/strict code of conduct. It can limit your access to volunteers and is one more hurdle to joining the organization. Think of how much sales/conversions can drop if a user has to click through one more screen or is required to click one more confirmation, now add on top of that the user is trying to volunteer, an action which is more complex if not more costly then a simple purchase. It would be interesting to quantify the codes of conduct(how they are enforced not written) from different web forums and correlate it with member growth, retention, and level of interaction.

So in a diverse volunteer community it seems advantageous to first encourage members to be generous of what they accept before encouraging them to be careful with what they share.

</comment><comment><USER36> The reason why Linus (or anybody else) might want to act 'professionally' (or nicely, whatever) is because some people feel bad when they are shouted at. It's completely valid to argue that shouting is just a culturally different, but acceptable way of expressing one's thoughts but then you need to be aware that you'll potentially lose people who just simply hate this form of communication.

So this discussion is not about whether shouting and cursing is morally acceptable or not. It's about who's going to make compromises, who's able to make compromises and who are we going to lose in the process. What Sarah (probably) implicitly says is 'I hate this, and I don't want to work in an environment like this - and there might be other people who feel the same'. If Linus thinks that he cannot work in a different way then (because he's pretty important for Linux) probably Sarah is going to be sacrificed in some way. That might be all right, but again: this is not a moral issue.

<comment><USER37> I don't think that Linus imagined that the result of his messages _wouldn 't_ be people feeling bad. Feeling bad is the whole point. Negative reinforcement; hitting the puppy with a newspaper so it won't shit on your carpet again.

I think the question is, for any kernel developer--do you care enough about Linux that you _want_ to be negatively reinforced when you're being stupid, or do you care more about feeling good all the time?

<comment><USER38> See, you need to read up on puppy education. Hitting the puppet with a newspaper will not achieve the desired goal - now the puppy is confused and afraid.[1]

Same is true in work environments: You criticise the work, do not insult the person. Otherwise problems will be swept under the rug until they start to rot and can't be hidden any more.

[1] You can actually achieve the exact opposite: Peeing is a gesture of submission for dog puppies, so if you yell at them, they might just pee again.

<comment><USER37> Right--and indeed, what Linus was doing here was criticizing the work ("the work" not being the commit itself--there are plenty of horrible commits submitted to the kernel every day--but rather the _process_ that allowed this commit to end up in a stable merge patchset.)

The puppy-newspaper thing was intended to just be an evocative metaphor--I'm well-aware that hitting actual puppies with actual newspapers doesn't help anything. This is mostly because it's hard to understand, whether as a puppy or a human, exactly what you did that _led_ you to being hit with a newspaper. Harsh words are much clearer than newspapers in giving causal structure.

(Though, if the stimulus-response is direct enough, words aren't exactly necessary; those "invisible fence" shock/noise collars for dogs _do_ work, since the dog is given a much tighter feedback loop. As soon as they leave the defined zone, a pain-signal begins; as soon as they re-enter the zone, it ends. They can _do science_ to figure out what is and is not painful, rather than being presented with a punishment and then having to use abductive logic to derive (that is, to guess at) possible causes. On the other hand, it is very hard to do science about where is or is not safe to defecate, unless you have the runs. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is another great example of why you can't take successful people and distil them down to their base components and say "ah, this is what made him great!"

I believe being a loud-abrasive-dictator works for Linus because he is famous for being a loud-abrasive-dictator.

That's not important. What is important is the reader. Let's be clear on a few things

#1 - Linus doesn't run a business. He's the kernel admin, he's a popular figure, he manages millions of lines of code. That's an entirely different game than what is necessary to run a small/mid/large business. Comparing the two is an apples-to-hammers comparison.

In a business, or small open source project, you have to be willing to deal with what you get. You will make sacrifices, it wont be easy. You might have this great idea but only 2 people are willing to work the occasional weekend on it; are you about to start an email chain calling them all dogshit coders?

Linus doesn't have that problem. He's famous for being Linus. You are not famous for being you.

#2 - YOU need to know how to be critical and polite. I don't care what Linus gets to do. You as a developer, you as a person who isn't famous, you as someone working in a team must (MUST) learn how to give constructive criticism.

"Bob, This isn't up to our quality standards, here's an example (cite)".

Easy, no frills, no shit-sandwich, no sugar-coated-political-correct-everyone- holds-hands-and-sings-around-the-campfire filler text. It's clear and it gets straight to the point. Learn how to do this, or fight an uphill battle with diminishing returns.

Linus can start a project tomorrow and have a hundred developers working on it, you cannot.

#3 - I'd take Linus' opinion on business culture with about the same size of salt as I would when listening to Jonathan Ive's opinion on middle-eastern- politics.

Everyone gets to have an opinion on something. I'm sure Tim Cook has an opinion on healthcare, and Bill Gates has an opinion on footwear. This doesn't make them experts on the subject or even any more informed than your average person. They're famous for doing X, listen to their opinions on X, take everything else as amateur opinion.

Linus is the kernal admin. I want to know how he manages 15 million lines of code, I want to know how he forks/branches/merges this code, how he handles bugs, how he tests it, and how work is handed out. I want to get his opinion on _managing code_ not _managing people_. He doesn't deal with payroll, 401ks, employee vacations or benefits, he doesn't care about retention, he cares about code.

<comment><USER40> I love what Linus is saying here. I feel like some people haven't really internalized the lesson of the schoolyard saying 'sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me'.

I think that saying is deeper than it seems at first blush. It's a reminder that we are 100% in control of how we react to words. We choose how we react to words. You can always choose. Anyone who complains about language is implicitly saying they're unable to control themselves and how they react to words.

<comment><USER41> > Anyone who complains about language is implicitly saying they're unable to > control themselves and how they react to words.

The reality is that most people (probably even including you) cannot do this 100%.

Total equanimity is something to strive for in our own lives, but it should not be a criteria by which we judge other people. And it should not be an excuse to be a jerk.

One of the key insights of working together constructively with other people is that I don't get to decide how other people think. If I want them to do something, I have to get them to see why they should do it, _from their own perspective._ Abusing them, and then telling them to get over it, usually does not work well.

<comment><USER40> _The reality is that most people (probably even including you) cannot do this 100%._

All people definitely can do this. They just choose not to.

I won't say that I always do, but I try to keep it mind. Its a lesson I really try to internalize.

Try this thought experiment. Let's say I show up at your office with a duffel bag filled with $1M cash ... and I said to you, snowwrestler 'I'm now going to make a bunch of nasty and insulting comments to you ... if you can laugh it off with a smile you get this giant bag of cash', I suspect you could find it in you to absolutely ignore everything I said and happily focus on the giant bag of cash sitting in front of you.

<comment><USER42> _All people definitely can do this. They just choose not to._

Wrong. The classic demonstration is Phineas Gage. A man who by all accounts had very good self-control until the day that an accident drove a railroad spike through his brain, taking out the frontal lobe that is responsible for said control. After that he lost control. Not through lack of will, but because of physical trauma. The same phenomena has been observed in lots of stroke victims.

Moving on, there are a ton of psychiatric conditions which are not even that rare that result in people who have hardwired reactions to words that are out of their conscious control. PTSD. Social anxiety. Manic-depression (at either extreme). And so on. These days we can map out how words get processed and see the short circuit that keeps the frontal lobe out of the loop. It isn't a question of willpower. We know how to treat these conditions and help people regain control. We don't do it by telling people to "try harder".

What about normal people? Well it has long been known that any normal person in the grip of strong emotion also loses control. It doesn't matter why they have the strong emotion - someone died, you were in a fight, etc - once you feel the emotion, you have no control. Furthermore every time we go through this pattern, we wind up laying a path that makes it easier to go through the pattern.

Afterwards it is easy for people to go through a thought experiment. Say, "I should have done this, said that, held my temper." Blame themselves. Promise they will do better But guess what? They are wrong. Next time they don't do better. Not because of lack of willpower (though that may be an issue), but because human brains don't work in the way we consciously think they work.

But note this is not just defeatism. Because it turns out that we _can_ understand these classic patterns we have. And with understanding comes the ability to get better control. But not through having an iron will. Instead through having the self-awareness to know, "When I feel this and hold it in like that the next thing I know I lose control. So I need to pay attention to this early sign and walk away for 10 minutes, then come back and continue."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I only have one Linus story. Way back in 2007, he was supposed to come and give a talk on git. I had to do an on-site interview with a candidate immediately beforehand, but managed to get it done and got there in time to see the talk start. I had never seen him in person and figured it might be interesting, particularly since I had actually used git on some projects prior to that point.

This wound up being recorded, and it's online here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8)

I think I lasted ten minutes and left after deciding it was too much. There was enough of that kind of energy going around already to willingly sit there and take in more. Besides, I had an interview to write up.

<comment><USER44> Interesting how different people can see the same thing. To me Linus seems to be mostly pleasant during that talk and to the point. I have heard ranty talks and this is not one of them.

I assume it must be cultural difference, since I also checked with my colleagues and they do not think Linus was rude either during that talk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I like this guy more and more every time i read some of his comments.

I agree acting professional is not healthy for a real social interaction and you need real social interactions when you're building a collaborative system like Linux.

The only time i act professional is when somebody pissed me off and I'm not in a position to tell him he's a moron without being fired or otherwise get into trouble.

</comment><comment><USER46> Who cares if he acts professionally or not? But he's certainly not kind, and that counts.

Whenever someone talented acts like a dick, take a moment to think of all the talented people in history who managed to remain civil despite their accomplishments. It's a long enough list to matter. No one gets a free pass.

</comment><comment><USER47> This is the nerd equivalent of "MAN UP, BRO."

It's not how grownups deal with each other.

</comment><comment><USER48> The fact that so many people have popped up here to defend or justify Linus's behavior terrifies me.

There is no excuse for being mean. Period. Full stop. This is basic human courtesy - they teach it in grade school.

It doesn't matter if you're famous, or if you lead a project with tons of users and contributors, or you're nobody - anything that you can yell at people, you can also tell them politely. And you can argue about the technicalities of what constitutes "professionalism" or "abusive speech" all you want - the fact is, what Linus said was mean, and nobody should have to be on the receiving end of that. It doesn't matter if it's said in public or private, or whether the person he was talking to did something "stupid" (and haven't we all, at some point?) - nobody should have to be treated that way.

And if you think otherwise, well, I hope I never have to work with you.

</comment><comment><USER49> I think he is correct. If you censor yourself in order to act 'nice' and 'polite' then you won't be able to put across the points you could've before.

Anyway: just because you act nice and act like you like somebody, doesn't mean you do.

I would much rather a person called me out on my bullshit than them politely skirting around the issue in an attempt to make me feel better and protect my feelings.

I personally have no experience writing kernel code, but I can imagine it's incredibly important that you get things right. So then if getting cursed at means you won't fuck up as often and learn from your mistake, then it works.

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady His last paragraph sums it up perfectly. When people hide behind false politeness and act passive aggressively they tend to let someone else know about their frustrations which leads to rumours, backstabbing etc.

It's also important to remember that tone doesn't come across well online so you shouldn't overreact to what you're reading. If someone curses online you could read it very aggressively. But if you were to hear them speak it it might seem much less threatening and aggressive and most or a speech pattern/way of phrasing things/way of making a point.

</comment><comment><USER50> I find his answer very reasonable (although I also found some of his past answers quite harsh).

<comment><USER12> Sure, some answers are harsh, some are nicer, but as long as they get the job done, I don't see a reason why one would want to complain about a 'harsh' answer – the world is not wrapped in friendly gift wrap and if you do something stupid, people are absolutely allowed to call you out on it without the unnecessary boilerplate in particular Angloamericans are so fond of using.

Short is good, harsh is not a problem, if short means harsh, so be it.

<comment><USER51> > if you do something stupid, people are absolutely allowed to call you out on > it

The problem with cultural differences is that the effect of this might be not the intended one: the person you shouted at will consider you rude and as someone to avoid instead of reflecting on their actions and trying harder the next time. So it's not really smart to act like this, even if you feel it's "natural". You need to be someone important to be able to afford it and Linus (still) is.

<comment><USER12> > The problem with cultural differences is that the effect of this might be > not the intended one

'Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send' has two clauses for a reason, namely that trying to gauge the effect of what one says on every possible group will fail. Sure, someone you tell 'no, this is utter crap, go back and fix it' might find that rude and will never talk to you again, but on the other hand, someone might understand 'this could be improved here and there and maybe you could change that' as 'oh, that's fine apart from some trivialities'.

> You need to be someone important to be able to afford it and Linus (still) > is.

I wouldn't say you need to be someone important, you just have to be in a position where you don't have to care about possibly maybe hurting the delicate feelings of the other person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Cached version: [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3Amarc.info%2F%3Fl%3Dlinux- kernel%26m%3D137392506516022%26w%3D2)

</comment><comment><USER53> The most interesting thing about this post is that, were it not Linus, this comments page would be full of people calling him out.

<comment><USER54> Were it not Linus, nobody would bat an eyelid, because it's the "internet". Heck, just look at some of the comments here, they're not full of capitalized swear words yet they manage to be more nasty and hurtful than Linus was.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I agree completely with Linus, what he is saying is simple: people are different and they behave in different ways; you cannot force anybody to behave in a way that don't belong to him/her.

Then is raising the point: "How we manage a team of different people who need to interact each other ?"

It is not "if you don't like get out", it is more something like: "I know why you don't like, you don't like because you are expecting thing that you should not expect, so change your expectation."

Then him is using a very powerful language, maybe too powerful for a public mail list, but again is just the way Linus is, so get mad for it simply means to don't have understand a single word of his speech.

</comment><comment><USER56> See, the danger with Linus, and to a similar extent Steve Jobs, is that you will now get a bunch of mediocre developers or managers believing that the best way to get stuff done is to act like an arsehole.

It worked for those two. There are probably a few other people in history it has worked for as well (Patton?). You are not them. If you treat people badly it will bite you in the arse.

</comment><comment><USER57> I strongly believe now Linus' mother had an affair in Russia !

(Its only 100 or so kilometers to the border)

That kind of working environment: "I openly tell you when you do s--t but I do not hold grudge against you, it is for our mutual benefit" was common in Russian software companies around year 2000. This is largely a part of the culture.

It looks like a rudeness for an unprepared Western folks, but in fact it is not -- it is just unwillingness (or lack of proper training) to play games when one can do work instead.

I left Russia in 2003, and in the following years got adjusted my ways to be... nice.

I work from home in my pijamas too, so I wonder why Linus didn't catch that skill?..

</comment><comment> martin-adams >> Because I can pretty much guarantee that I'll continue cursing. To me, the discussion would be about how to work together despite these kinds of cultural differences

So if I get this right, we just need a Linus communication adapter that can translate messages so they are compatible with either side.

Does that mean when someone talks to Linus it should add swear words to be compatible with him? :)

I see his point, but it comes at a cost. People may start trying to work around him for fear of backlash rather than working with him. Or worse, just not try at all. We can only trust his technique has a greater net benefit.

<comment><USER37> Reminds me of the discussion of the difference between Ask and Guess cultures ([http://lesswrong.com/lw/375/ask_and_guess/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/375/ask_and_guess/)).

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I have very few code projects that I really truly feel passionate about. In my opinion Linus' violent reactions stems the fact that he truly cares about his product. These violent outburst kinda proofs my point. A tech lead that cares about the product will of course get mad when other messes with their "baby". I myself at times have "lost-it" like that but only when I truly cared about the code. The stability of the Linux kernel is a direct result of this kind of passion. Like it or not the proof is in the pudding.

</comment><comment><USER59> It figures a top voted comment on Hacker News is that Linus is wrong and we should all hold hands and sing camp songs.

There are _tons_ of useful discussions that simply don't happen on HN because anybody with an actual strong opinion gets helbanned. For instance Google's Go language is lauded here because of fake politeness, but almost universally dismissed elsewhere.

This discussion has already achieved its real goal: to put "Linus Torvalds" and "Sarah" in the same sentence; this is the bullshit politics Linus talks about.

<comment><USER60> Haha, agreed. I see two "dead" comments above you invisible to most people that are actually very valuable and pointing out that Finland where Linus started is not like America in regards to PC and honesty. I think HN is lessened by banning people who just have different or brutally honest opinions. They should save banning for spammers/trolls/people intentionally disrupting the discussion or lying, etc., but I see people ghosted all the time who are not that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> The historical evidence suggests that when it comes to massive social systems like the Linux kernel project, Linus knows more about keeping them vigorous and relevant than just about any other person in existence. He runs what is probably the most successful software project in human history. He has created a sustainable, growing social system that, for over two decades, has accomplished monumental technical feats and shows no signs of slowing. As impressive as Linux is as a technical achievement, it pales in comparison to the social achievement that is the Linux kernel project.

Therefore, I don't put much stock in people telling Linus how the Linux kernel project ought to be run. When he writes,

 _The fact is, people need to know what my position on things are. And I can 't just say "please don't do that", because people won't listen. I say "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle", and I mean it._ [1]

I'm inclined to believe him. Correspondingly, I have a hard time taking seriously the claims that the Linux kernel project, as a social system, would be better if Linus stopped doing what he's doing and did something "nicer" instead. The historical evidence suggests that what Linus is doing (whatever it is) works better than what everybody else is doing.

[1] [http://marc.info/?l=linux- kernel&m=137391223711946&w=2](http://marc.info/?l=linux- kernel&m=137391223711946&w=2)

</comment><comment><USER30> Video where Linus addresses the subject in response to an audience question (2:50 mins): [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZRvHbHxr-k&list=PLAD73BF2CF9...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZRvHbHxr-k&list=PLAD73BF2CF936A922)

</comment><comment><USER62> Linus can do whatever he wants because of what he does and how good he is at it. I'm just glad I don't have to work with him. It's possible to be honest and truthful and not be an asshole about it. It's just not possible for him.

</comment><comment><USER63> There is HUGE difference between 'your code sucks' and 'you suck'.

I'd argue the former is more effective at addressing the problem at hand, while hearing the latter from someone you respect can be emotionally devastating for some people.

<comment><USER64> But when you say "your code sucks" a lot of people hear "you suck", especially when they've put their heart and soul into it.

Still, I think we all know how difficult and time-consuming it can be to deal with people who just "don't get it" and won't listen. If Linus finds that cutting people like that off at the knees is an effective strategy for managing open source projects, who am I to argue with him?

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I think it's fine that Linus act that way in the context that he's in. However, there are far too many people agreeing that his way is the best way in all environments (or at least, in all "professional" environments). The reality is, each context is different. There are times when he's not going to curse at people. When he's not going to act the way he does.

Which leads to my point: you shouldn't be using his reasoning to justify your own actions. You are not a kernel developer replying to people on the kernel mailing list (unless you really are =)).

The fact that people look up to him and admire him does mean his cursing and attitude does have a harmful impact: people see him doing and use that as qualification for their own attitude.

There is also the assumption that professionalism means a lot of negative things. The truth is, it doesn't. Being a professional isn't about office politics (despite what some might want to believe). Professionalism is all about context. To slap a definition to professionalism and assume it applies everywhere equally means you need to accept those defining profanity as abusive everywhere in all context.

Basically, if you are using Linus as a justification to allow you to curse or be rude, you are doing it wrong and missing the point.

p.s. I should also note that I believe that anything that worth doing well takes effort. And while it's easier to skip being polite all together, I find that it's usually worth the effort. In the end, you spend less time dealing with discussions of profanity, and get to discuss the actual point. Context matters of course, which is why it works on the kernel mailing list, but not in many others.

</comment><comment><USER66> "Profanity is the language common to all programmers".

This entire thing is the clash of two cultures: corporatism (and its drive to mediocrity/milquetoasts) vs "getting sh*t done right"-ism.

It all comes down to this: do you value political sensitivity, or calling a spade a spade (granted, profanity isn't required for this, but it certainly helps)?

Give me the latter any day. I'm an adult; I can handle it.

<comment><USER67> > This entire thing is the clash of two cultures: corporatism (and its drive > to mediocrity/milquetoasts) vs "getting sh*t done right"-ism.

a) You're a stupid cunt if you think that's the fucking argument. Your comprehension sucks. Don't bother responding if you come up with retarded shit like this. Idiot.

b) No, the people asking for an end to viciousness are not asking for "politically correct" over-polite speech. You can call a spade a spade. You can call broken code broken. What you shouldn't do is call a spade a fucking useless spade. You shouldn't call the spade-user a clueless fuckwit. This is also not about "getting shit done". Starting a flamewar distracts people from the actual job, and makes people less, not more, efficient.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> If someone pushed their cart in front of him at the grocery store checkout and said "I hate lines. This is just how I roll." I wonder if he'd be OK with this other person's "expectations" of behavior.

The argument that acting "professionally" is an act or compromise we must try to avoid is bizarre to me. I dislike compromising over all sorts of things but having manners and not just doing everything or acting in a way your impulses desire is much of what it means to be an adult than an adolescent.

Forget the term "professional" even, let's just go with "courtesy" or "having manners." Fake, they may be, but people who act upon negative impulses in public whether sexual, violent, or even just bad language aren't typically going to have a good time.

</comment><comment><USER69> I feel the people defending Linus are being a tad hypocritical. I feel as though because you like Linus or Linux, his behavior is effectively being excused.

A thought experiment would be to replace "Linus" with someone you don't particularly care for and see if you don't wince just a bit.

<comment><USER70> Like? I think it's more nearly that serious programmers tend to be very impressed with Linus's results, and his critics have tried to attack him in ways that don't properly acknowledge that. If a critic had said upfront "I don't much care whether a project can build a useful piece of software, what I care about is that people don't lose their temper" then we'd agree to disagree. But instead the critics seem to be arguing that getting angry interferes with projects working well, for some value of "working well" presumably related to the stated purpose. Linux works awfully well...

I kinda like Linus, but I don't particularly care for most sports coaches. I don't follow any spectator sports, but even I know that a nontrivial fraction of highly successful sports coaches lose their temper. I think the people who are arguing for more restraint or care or kabuki wrapped around expression of justified anger should face some burden of proof to show that their way works better, rather than just demanding that organizations be run their way while implying that Linus's way works worse.

I think it's very important for a leader to make technical decisions correctly, including the technical decision whether something is screwed up enough to get angry about. (And my strong impression is that Linus is unusually good at this.) I have some preference for leaders trying to be careful and dispassionate and clear about expressing their anger (e.g., full sentences with constructs "this is unacceptable", followed any detail that might be needed to be easily understood). But judging by results, it's not clear that my preference works any better than Linus's. And in long-term interactions with serious people, any difference may naturally tend to be small: most conversations between people are more about "what does he really mean" than about what was literally said, and you can quickly learn if A generally means the same thing by "what the F*CK" as B means by "this is unacceptable".

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I know now what I could tell to a young nerd who's been bullied:

 _Don 't worry, later you'll be able to do the same_

I guess it's a great example for young peoples that you can get away with any despicable behaviors as long as you have done something worthwhile in your life. People are then able to rationalize that by saying it was "warranted" or "thought provoking" or any garbage they can find to justify it, because somehow that person is in their "tribe".

Yes it's more efficient to say "I don't like that because X, Y or Z, change that." than "I don't like that because X, Y or Z, CHANGE THAT PIECE OF SHIT". Otherwise, you're implying that without swear words, Linus wouldn't have any power over the kernel.

Ridiculous isn't it?

<comment><USER72> No, it's not ridiculous. If building a bridge were the context, and someone built a piece that would collapse the bridge, I'd fully expect any foreman to say "What the fuck is that?" "That is shit".

And I'd fully expect any worker to say "Yeah, damn, you're right, that was stupid. Cheers, I'll fix that"

People didn't start building stuff in the digital era., It's the same principles.

I hope to hell all crap gets called out, otherwise we're in a position where the bridge builders "meant well", and I wouldn't want to cross a river over such a bridge.

<comment><USER71> You still haven't proved it's more efficient, here for example is a study[0] showing that self-blame is counter-productive.

Also, your example is actually a good example of why this technique is not only inefficient, but morally and ethically wrong, because if a single worker can destroy a bridge, then there is a couple of engineers that didn't do their jobs correctly.

[0] [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886910000474?np=y)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> I think we need to remember that the words and the intent of the words are two different things. If he's just given to rudeness and profanity, that in and of itself is not a big deal. There are plenty of very abrasive people who do good work and aren't trying to hurt anyone. If Linus was out to actually harm people - maybe he is, I don't know - that would be a problem IMO.

He's absolutely correct that everyone doesn't have to like and be able to work with everyone. All the people who continue to find ways to complain about his behavior just don't like him. OK. Fork the project.

See: OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD for domain examples of what to do when you have personality conflicts in an open source OS project.

</comment><comment><USER74> I think this is largely generational. People over 30 are not surprised at all to run into abrasive, hard nosed people at work, people under 30 in many cases have a very hard time with _any_ amount of criticism or negativity and consider even tiny amounts "bullying".

It's become a well known issue in professional sports with coaching where old time successful coaches have had to completely change their style to deal with the latest generation of athletes who do not respond well at all to the traditional dictatorship that coaches used to run.

Now a lot of hand holding is reportedly required. I'm not judging but struggle to think of anything great that was ever built by a committee.

</comment><comment><USER75> The only professionals in this business are the people who are coding while everybody else is typing words that dont compile.

</comment><comment><USER76> If you are a Linux kernel programmer/submitter, you should know the situation by now. You don't have to submit code to Linus as he has stated, you can go through an intermediary. Don't waste his time, that's the most valuable thing he has.

As far as professionals cursing, I reckon most of the individuals on HN have never been in the military. There's a fine art of stressing the importance of paying attention to details, which good noncoms and shipmates enforce through creative profanity and rich English. It stress the importance of the situation.

</comment><comment><USER77> As always, Linus is right. 99% commenters here probably work for businesses which are surviving only because of the Free and amazing kernel which he has managed to build.

Linus has explained his directness and lack of sugar coating several times. Sugar coating something, he believes, dilutes the importance of the message AND confuses his subordinates. "We can try avoiding X" is more ambiguous than "X is crap, you dumb morons". The latter statement is absolutely clear where Linus stands. Which is what communication is all about?

Plus, i reckon it is different in a "Proper Business" where employees are _paid_ to do work directly under a manager. To avoid connotations of servitude and slavery, modern businesses decided that managers should be polite so that their subordinates feel that they aren't slaves. With Linux, no one is forcing you to commit "bullshit" patches.

RANT: I reckon a deeper problem is that a lot of kernel developers are now _paid_ to work on it (as observed in this thread). So i reckon that in this case, the developer expects the same kind of feel-goody emails as her corporate manager keeps sending her.

</comment><comment><USER78> Since Linus is not actually impolite in this email, I'm just going to ignore that and comment on the main thing he talked about:

 _Calling things "professional" is just more of the same - trying to enforce some kind of convention on others by trying to claim that it's the only acceptable way._

Being professional is similar to being politically correct. Don't say anything impolite or you'll offend people, don't say anything 'unprofessional' or you'll get fired, don't say anything 'not politically correct' or (in some countries) you'll have the police knocking at your door. That is where it leads and that is why I support his argument.

Additionally, in my experience, the above behavior leads to behind-the-back sneaky and spiteful behavior. People who don't like something xyz is doing, so instead of _risking confrontation_ by telling someone politely that it's annoying / won't work, they'll talk to the manager or get back at someone 3 weeks later.

</comment><comment><USER79> There's a big difference between tolerance and respect. The two have become blurred in modern society. Respect is the higher goal.

</comment><comment><USER80> Amusing post! Linus makes a nice point about finding ways to work together without imposing expectations on each other. OTOH, Linus seems to expect that everyone has "names will never hurt me" world view. Most of us can be deeply hurt by the kind of verbal abuse Linus so freely supplies. And why should anyone work with someone who hurts them?

Isn't OP's appeal to "professional behavior" exactly the same as Linus' point? Professional behavior is the set of rules the world has evolved to find ways to work together when we're all different. Those rules work statistically well ... except for outliers like Linus.

I don't know much about Linus other than his brilliance and his verbal abuse... which reminds me of Bobby Fisher - breathtakingly beautiful chess mind and pathetic garbage heap of a person. I hope Linus is better than that, and suffers from nothing more than anger management and healthy rebelliousness

</comment><comment><USER81> I swear he must have some copy/paste responses for this by now. It seems like it pops up every couple of months, when someone shows up seemingly completely oblivious to the way Linus has behaved for the past what, two decades? And decides they want to be a part of the kernel team? How does that even happen? I only have a passing familiarity with Linus and his kernel development team and I fully know what I could expect if I decided to become a part of it.

Regardless, why would anyone think they can tell him what is or is not professional? I think once you've created something on the scale of Linux, you get to define that word for yourself. It reminds me of the line from Parks & Recreation: "Everything I do is the behavior of an award winner because I HAVE WON AN AWARD."

Don't screw with the formula folks. Linux is too damn important to screw up, and Linus obviously knows what the hell he's doing.

</comment><comment><USER82> Regardless of the rectitude of either point of view, I consider it important to develop the resilience necessary to soak in difficult language. You can't decide - or always influence - how your peers or bosses talk to you. More importantly, you may miss the feedback the language comes with - feedback that might help you improve yourself.

I deal with a yelling boss by hearing him out and then, once the moment has passed, rerunning the event and mining it for real criticism, minus the emotional baggage it came with. If I find nothing, I disregard his gibber entirely; if I find something substantial, I make note of it and (in the days that follow) try to weed it out.

Worst case: I get nothing useful, in which case the boss was simply venting. Best case: I learn something about myself, and get better in the process.

</comment><comment><USER83> I think that apart from Linux specific peculiarities (cf. 'git'), I guess that part of this might be due to European/American differences. My personal impression is that overseas work environments tend to be rather non- confrontational, with even raised voices often being seen as a persona attack, instead of a temporary "airing of grievances". In places I've worked in Europe (Germany/Ireland), this often was treated as the same reaction you have when you hit your finger with a hammer -- meant as a stress relief, not as attacking someone's core values and competences.

Anecdatal, sure, but I've heard people tell of similar experiences. And my US data points included blue collar workers in Jersey, not exactly the pinnacle of PC, I'd say.

</comment><comment><USER84> The one thing that annoys me about posts like this is the lack of context. We get one post from Linus trying to rationalize his outbursts. And we end up with a debate about whether we have the right to swear and call unsatisfactory commits, "stupid."

It's not about this LKML thread. The discussion is about justifying a certain set of behaviours that a certain group identifies with. Posts like this polarize the discussion. No one wins when there are only two options.

Personally I think losing your temper in public is a weakness. Swearing is a rude form of language. And I don't take people very seriously who are too quick to point out how stupid other people are (it's a sign of insecurity).

</comment><comment><USER85> All I can say is, people should read the whole thread. I don't think the examples presented by Sarah are all that good. Yes, Linus uses strong words but they are not really ad hominem. He doesn't hate the people who made the errors, but he is angry since they "should have known better". He has a great point about email communication: that one really has to be more honest and open about feelings. And that obviously includes feelings of anger and frustration.

Start from here:

[http://marc.info/?l=linux- kernel&m=137391145411685&w=2](http://marc.info/?l=linux- kernel&m=137391145411685&w=2)

Update: bad -> good.

<comment><USER85> This is the gem: "Sarah, I don't have Tourettes syndrome." :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> This is out of context, and while Linus is an entertaining and impassioned writer, it really shouldn't be discussed outside of the group who's job it is to read it, albeit on a public list.

I guess that Linus generally achieves results from a direct and terse tone, but that may also be the fastest way to get through his vast inbox. It's far from diplomatic bureaucracy and that's going to rub some people, but the parent was probably right on calling him out.

I just don't think this is the forum for this kind of gossip, why not leave it to lowest denominator tech journalism?

</comment><comment><USER87> Ugh, mailing lists. I wonder why so smart people as Linus doesn't invent something thats slightly more comfortable to use. Maybe they just like to be left alone, without interference from mortals.

<comment><USER88> What's uncomfortable about email?

<comment><USER87> I don't think email is a good format for long discussions. Also, the page linked doesn't make it better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think that there is something of a mismatch in taking the contents of a private email public to complain about them, then complaining about a lack of professionalism on the part of the other person.

</comment><comment><USER89> Robert Heinlein had something to say about this:

 _" Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untravelled, the naive, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best."_

</comment><comment><USER90> RE: Linus

There are/were other people in similar positions who did not act in that way to their peers. If people that thought that treating others with respect, or remaining emotionally neutral toward them was something worth mentioning, HN would be flooded with newsgroup posts and emails. Most of the time we really only talk about Linus because he's an asshole. Usually noone really cares about the technical merits of his arguments. I don't really think it belongs on TBH.

</comment><comment><USER91> I actually agree with him on the term "professionalism", and I've come out against the term "maturity" for the same reasons.

That said, Linus is a jerk. He says things that are aimed to hurt people. It's one thing to 'not think about it', or to not 'play into the game'. But he goes well beyond that, saying things that are mean and vitriolic. He can get away with it, he's a genius coder, yeah, all true. He's still a jerk.

</comment><comment><USER92> I think is it has more to do with Human Interaction, or working as Remote.

When I dont see your face, listen to you directly, It is rather hard to understand the importance of something. Especially when they are working on kernel, which is the most critical component.

Would Linus have said it loudly in front of hundreds of other Engineers? I would have properly called it verbal abuse. But in real life at least i can rise my voice and tone and shout without having to use a single abusive word.

</comment><comment><USER93> He poses an interesting question: "How to work together DESPITE people being different" yet leaves it unanswered. It would be interesting to see the answers.

</comment><comment><USER94> What matters is that Linus isn't attacking someone for WHO THEY ARE (identity). He is attacking them for WHAT THEY DID (actions). I think this is the gold standard for whether behavior is abusive.

Other than that,

This concept of "professional standards" of behavior is completely parochial. Try going to a constuction site. Or bootcamp. Or working on a pig farm. Standards of behavior vary dramatically between organizations, industries, and cultures.

</comment><comment><USER95> Aren't they talking past each other?

Sarah says: quit being sexist, racist, and stuff.

Linus says: I'm a shouty dude and that's fine.

To which I say: surely these are non-overlapping concerns?

<comment><USER96> My impression is that Linus shouts at everyone. Where the sexist comes from?

<comment><USER95> Implied by "this is not just about me, or other minorities".

<comment><USER96> So basically she implies he is a racist? Is not this even worse abuse than initial Linus rant?

<comment><USER95> 1\. I didn't find/read Sarah's up thread message. But the snippet implies _somebody_ is (pick one of) sexist/racist/etc. Not necessarily Linus.

2\. Accusing someone of sexism, racism, etc, is not "abuse". It is never an insult. If you get accused of it, consider being less sexist/racist/etc rather than taking offense.

<comment><USER97> Even if you had, you would still have been taking things wildly out of context. You are peeking into a subset of a single day in a virtual "office". The conversation you're seeing snippets of is against a backdrop of more than two decades of that office's operation and social interactions you obviously have not observed.

Linus swears a lot (compared to an American), and sometimes blows up at maintainers who do stupid things. That's what this is about. Not racism, sexism, or any other form of oppression you might want it to be about.

When you walk in on a conversation and hear "I keep her in a cage", they might be talking about their pet rabbit, not their wife.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> This really stands out: _" people resort to all kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their normal urges in unnatural ways."_

Stop considering emotional outbursts, negative attitudes, lack of compassion and childishness as "normal urges". Regardless of your opinion on professionalism, it's just fucked up to be rude to people.

</comment><comment><USER99> Making a private conversation/quarrel public like this isn't exactly 'professional' either...

</comment><comment><USER100> Linus makes a great point here. While I personally don't think I'd enjoy working with Linus, I have to agree with him. He can behave how he wants and it's my responsibility if I don't like it. Linus does not run after me with curses and I don't want to do that to him either.

</comment><comment><USER101> I'm in the group that agree w/ Linus and disagree w/ user Columbo. Columbo may be a manager, but Linus is a leader. Leader of thousands of software developers, a leader that inspires. A manager is someone you can fire and you software company works better.

</comment><comment><USER22> Anytime one of these "Linus is too harsh" topics comes up, it always seems like he's completely reasonable and level headed. I'd like to see the whole thread here so we know why he accused her of playing the victim card.

</comment><comment><USER102> Honestly, if Linus was my boss, I'd quit my job cursing him. He has a lot going for him. I understand why he needs to be like this and why it works, but in all seriousness, I'd much rather be like Eric Schmidt or Bill Joy.

</comment><comment><USER103> Mirror: [http://marc.info.nyud.net/?l=linux- kernel&m=137392506516022&...](http://marc.info.nyud.net/?l=linux- kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2)

</comment><comment><USER72> He's correct about the cultural aspects. Many cultures value directness in criticism. Why should an open source community be bound by an American ideal of "correct behaviour"?

</comment><comment><USER104> I think that most people who have no peoblem with profanity and unprofessional behaviour have not worked in a office where it regularly occurs. trust me its not a fun place to work.

</comment><comment><USER105> Faster mirror: [https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/15/547](https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/15/547)

</comment><comment><USER106> Each to his own. I wouldn't behave the way he does but I sure do respect that he stands up for what he thinks is right.

</comment><comment><USER107> Linus is a brilliant asshat.

</comment><comment><USER108> All I can think of is when Linus said told Nvidia "F... you!" and flipped the bird.

[http://youtu.be/IVpOyKCNZYw](http://youtu.be/IVpOyKCNZYw)

This isn't just an isolated incident either, but I'm no shining example of _acting professionally._

</comment><comment><USER109> He reminds me a bit (in a good way) of Steve Jobs.

</comment><comment><USER101> And sounds a lot like Steve Jobs.

</comment><comment><USER110> argv & argc! :)

</comment><comment><USER101> A lot like Steve Jobs.

</comment><comment><USER111> I'm glad Linus isn't budging on this one. As soon as you start considering how not to hurt someone's feelings, you're putting speed bumps in the paths of your thoughts. If something is fucking stupid, then someone needs to say exactly that, not "That's a good idea, but it seems to me and my mealy mouth that such and such may be another way of doing it...?"

The fact that the hacker community is full of mean gits is no coincidence. Let's consider where the opposite type of people (the ones who'll smile charmingly while stabbing you in the back) congregate - HR, PR, management, politics - all fields where creativity is less important than manipulativeness.

I'll take a brutally honest genius over a charming "socially intelligent" liar any day.

<comment><USER112> There's nothing wrong with "That's a really bad idea, and here's why". There's everything wrong with "THAT IDEA IS FUCKING STUPID. YOU'RE SUCH AN IDIOT".

Do you really think the only way to communicate a mistake is like this: [https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75](https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75) ?

And Linus is perfectly capable of giving a more reasoned response while still being direct: [https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/99](https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/99) (same thread, Linus' reply to a reasoned response from yelled at developer)

Still pretty direct, but gone are the insults. Nobody has been asking for a sugar coating, but simply for Linus to stop being personally abusive.

Yes, people make mistakes. Really stupid mistakes. But if you think they're idiots, don't accept their contributions. If you _don 't_ think they're idiots, why call them that just because you can't control your anger?

<comment><USER111> And here we see the pitfalls of fuzzy thinking. There is all the difference between "that's a stupid idea" and "you're an idiot."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> This is a brilliant piece of writing by Linus. Love it. Rarely seen his points expressed that well.

</comment><comment><USER114> this did not need to be aired out infront of anyone - just like theo handles his business, let linus handle his how he wants. maybe theo rubbed off on him. maybe people like OP can go fuck themselves.

</comment><comment><USER115> Linus is awesome. He gets things done. He calls out bullshit when he sees it. And he doesn't afraid of anything.

</comment><comment><USER116> Has he ever tasted his own medicine?

</comment><comment><USER117> love it</comment>


5 technologies that could alter your career over the next five years - <AUTHOR> http://news.dice.com/2014/11/17/5-technologies-that-could-alter-your-career/

<comment><USER2> If there is IoT, why no OtoO (Online to Offline) ?</comment>


Money can buy happiness, but not unconditionally - <AUTHOR> https://www.trackinghappiness.com/can-money-buy-happiness/ <comment><USER2> I think it's a well-established fact that going from poor to middle class makes a huge difference, from middle to top makes difference too, but not as big.

5 years ago I was a carpenter in New York making some 30k a year, I was miserable. I wanted a different job, but not only because of a better paycheck, but also a kind of work I'd do, the way I'd spend my days.

Now I'm a web developer and having that background really puts things into perspective. That perspective makes me pretty darn happy. My point is this:

It's an equation with multiple variables, where 'money' is only one of 'em. For me it's

M + T + Q = H

M = Money

T = Amount of time you spend to get it

Q = quality of that time. Sure you can make big buck but do something you're absolutely horrified by, something that makes you miserable... Or you make a pretty modest paycheck, but enjoy every minute of it.

Of course, there is more to it, but it conveys the idea: Money affects how you feel, but there is more to that.

<comment><USER3> I kinda think its funny how the emphasis on money is being made here. While true, money intrinsically fails to have any real value besides what others think it is worth (its a fiat currency).

Money represents value, and with value we can buy other stuff that makes us happy. I would argue that money is not part of the equation here at all, but rather the stuff that money can buy. If we take your equation of M+T+Q=H then the M would be weighed differently in Nepal than in San Fransisco with its higher CoL. I, personally, would be able to live very comfortably without any money, given my physical needs are satisfied. What will _probably_ happen in this moneyless society is that another value store would be created to transfer value in and across time, something like money but with shells or oddly shaped stones maybe.

The point I was trying to make was that money does not bring happiness, but rather the stuff that money allows us to buy. Then I followed this argument and came to the conclusion that we end up with money anyway.

Are there any advanced societies _without_ a value-store like money? I wonder.

<comment><USER4> I also wonder if AGI (if we get that far) will use money

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't think anyone contests the fact that money increases happiness _up to a point_.

Once you have full financial security though, it becomes quite nonlinear. Outside of bonkers areas, 1 million NW gets you retirement. 10 million NW gets you that plus... toys.

It's a major reason why taxation should focus on the rich (as opposed to the 'well off' e.g. high incomes). They really will not notice it aside from ideological opposition.

<comment><USER6> Are you speaking from personal experience or is this just what you've heard elsewhere?

I've still not reached the point where more money hasn't increased my happiness, however I'm definitely making far more than an above-average wage in London.

I think a great number of people could be happier with more money assuming they have good ideas on how they can spend their money to improve their lives.

<comment><USER7> > _I 've still not reached the point where more money hasn't increased my > happiness_

Depends on the persons age and maturity level too. At some point shiny new cars and other trinkets are not really what makes you happy...

Besides, if you're making a wage (whether way above average or not) you might not still be quite that independent that more money makes no difference (or draw your happiness from competing in the race)...

<comment><USER8> > Depends on the persons age and maturity level too. At some point shiny new > cars and other trinkets are not really what makes you happy...

I don't know if I agree with that. Just because those things don't make you happy doesn't mean there aren't other things you can do with money that make you happy. Or maybe I just haven't matured enough yet?

At least I think I am at the point I don't care too much about having a fancy car or nice house.

Still, the thing that I have found to increase my happiness the most is giving it to someone else and seeing someone be really grateful. If I had more money I could do the same thing but to more people probably.

And probably just knowing that I have enough money that I don't need to worry would increase my happiness significantly. Even better would be that my parents don't have to work.

<comment><USER7> > _Still, the thing that I have found to increase my happiness the most is > giving it to someone else and seeing someone be really grateful. If I had > more money I could do the same thing but to more people probably._

Well, that's not money then, that's helping others. One can help other people with no or little money too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It absolutely can. Even without the categories the author tracked, a decrease in overall financial anxiety leads to an increase in happiness, which perhaps culminates with the point where one no longer needs to work in order to live.

<comment><USER10> I think a lot of people realize that "decreasing financial anxiety" would help with happiness, but I think for many, the first step is an honest look at expenses and understanding where their money goes. That always seems like the blocker.

</comment></comment><comment> ur-whale Is this really a study where there is exactly _one_ subject?

He can gather another million data point about a single subject (himself), that's never going to prove the point.

At the very best, he'll prove money makes _him_ happy. And probably not even that, given how many factors might affect his own life and moods.

<comment><USER11> I too find it strange that he couches this as a scientific study. A study of....himself.

Aside from starting an anecdotal conversation about happiness and money, there is no scientific merit here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Money can buy happiness is true in the sense of fulfilling a requirement for obtaining the need(s) to experience a happy outgoing life. A person may need an operation to improve their own health and afterwards would be able to seek happiness as the current moment is dread by the variables of requiring the procedure. Further, the person can only obtain the course of action needed with a sum of finances they lack. Another person may fit the same scenario but have the finances and can place themselves on the path of happiness sooner which may be better than later. I see this in the transgender community a lot. People debate it all the time because of discomfort towards the idea that finances are a factor in obtaining vs not in having a happy life.

</comment><comment><USER13> Money can't buy happiness, the lack of money is a source of "unhappiness", totally different.

<comment><USER14> The lack of money to do what? To spend?

Because that's what we call having money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The bit I find strange about this tracking is the whole daily spend thing.

I track my finances too and I have many "zero-spend" days, but it doesn't paint a true picture because some costs come out all in one go (e.g. rent, bills etc)

Unless he's amortising those costs in his tracking?

</comment><comment><USER16> Interesting analysis, for me the takeaway was that he is 24. Going anecdotally, most people who are 24 think money can buy happiness; and it makes sense since most of them have:

1\. Some form of debt

2\. Lived off their parents or lower wage work

3\. All of a sudden get paid thousands of $$ (assuming it's a high paid full time job, which this person seems to have)

As we grow older, I think our perspectives change (mine certainly did). It's the same argument that we no longer played with dolls/toys/action figures when we are in our teens.

</comment><comment><USER17> Great write-up, I remember you shared this with me before when I posted about my habit tracker :) [https://everyday.app](https://everyday.app)

</comment><comment><USER18> I think it truly depends on the person. Give me $10 million and I will be very happy for the rest of my life as I indulge every hobby I've ever wanted, and build concrete security for myself and my family. I think it truly depends on the person. Give me $10 million and I will be very happy for the rest of my life as I indulge every hubby I've ever wanted, and build concrete security for myself and my family. The philosophical questions that money cannot buy you friends in love, but that Mrs. the point of people who don't necessarily need that in their lives.

<comment><USER19> One of my biggest nightmares is that money might bring out the worst in people whether myself, my family, or my friends so if I was lucky enough to get $10M, it would ruin my life by destroying everything that I love.

Sort of like the data behind the misfortunes of lottery winners.

[http://amp.timeinc.net/time/4176128/powerball-jackpot- lotter...](http://amp.timeinc.net/time/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery- winners)

In my limited experience, money makes it harder to have good relationships.

"I just don't like Jack Whittaker. I don't like the hard heart I've got," he said. "I don't like what I've become."</comment></comment>