to all the people dogpiling the responses against Era's point of view:

the reason there is not more dissent, whether here or in other respectable forums (eg scientific research in general), is purely because of social mechanics (ostracization of dissenters) - not the inherent unassailable truthfulness of the apparent consensus point of view. when contrary information is personally and professionally radioactive, is it a wonder nobody wants to associate themselves with it?

but here, as in so many elsewheres, "this is not the place." I'm already pushing the boundary with this meta-post containing no specific assertions, and will almost certainly put Mike in the unfortunate position of having to put his foot down in this thread (sorry Mike).

I'm just pointing out that, anywhere that people's real life identities are tied to what they are saying, there will be an artificial consensus around safe, socially sanctioned viewpoints. so you all essentially get an unrestricted platform to say "lol we're so informed and naysayers are tinfoil-hat nutters," but if somebody made a good-faith effort to respond to any of your points, messages would start getting deleted and the thread would be locked. and far from exceptional, that happens EVERYWHERE.

I don't expect any of you /respectable, rational/ people to read it, but for the shy dissenters among us, here's a short little essay on the circularity of scientific peer review (I am not the author):

https://www.reddit.com/r/accountt1234/comments/5umtip/scientific_circular_reasoning/

On Wednesday, 11 March 2020 at 20:30:12 UTC, Anonymous wrote:
> to all the people dogpiling the responses against Era's point of view:
>
> the reason there is not more dissent, whether here or in other respectable forums (eg scientific research in general), is purely because of social mechanics (ostracization of dissenters) - not the inherent unassailable truthfulness of the apparent consensus point of view. when contrary information is personally and professionally radioactive, is it a wonder nobody wants to associate themselves with it?
>
> but here, as in so many elsewheres, "this is not the place." I'm already pushing the boundary with this meta-post containing no specific assertions, and will almost certainly put Mike in the unfortunate position of having to put his foot down in this thread (sorry Mike).
>
> I'm just pointing out that, anywhere that people's real life identities are tied to what they are saying, there will be an artificial consensus around safe, socially sanctioned viewpoints. so you all essentially get an unrestricted platform to say "lol we're so informed and naysayers are tinfoil-hat nutters," but if somebody made a good-faith effort to respond to any of your points, messages would start getting deleted and the thread would be locked. and far from exceptional, that happens EVERYWHERE.
>
> I don't expect any of you /respectable, rational/ people to read it, but for the shy dissenters among us, here's a short little essay on the circularity of scientific peer review (I am not the author):
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/accountt1234/comments/5umtip/scientific_circular_reasoning/

What, you're saying continents can move and that there's no phlogiston and no ether around? Dinosaurs did not gradually disappear and washing ones hands could avoid childbed fever? and that stomach ulcer are of bacierial origin?
Heretic, to the pyre.
More seriously: these were all examples of career killing "consensus scientific truths"™ that have been slowly showed to be not that truthful (after a lot of funerals).
So, a little bit of caution on the consensus opinion is required, especially if that consensus enables billion/trillion big industries (global warming, pharmacology, etc.).

On 3/12/2020 9:18 AM, Patrick Schluter wrote:
> [...]

C'mon, fellows. There are PLENTY of places online where you can discuss this. But this forum is for D.

On Saturday, 7 March 2020 at 21:58:06 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> Let's do a little online thing instead! We could do a chat room, livestream, blog, you know stuff like that.

As has already been echoed in prior messages, I too am sad but not surprised by this announcement, particularly as every other tech conference or meeting has been met by the similar fates over the last few weeks.

If running Dconf as an online operation is of interest to any of the organizers, take a look at how LibrePlanet2020 is running their shop.

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/libreplanet-day-1-can-free-software-carry-an-entire-online-conference-yes-it-can

On Monday, 16 March 2020 at 08:28:21 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 March 2020 at 21:58:06 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> Let's do a little online thing instead! We could do a chat room, livestream, blog, you know stuff like that.
>
> As has already been echoed in prior messages, I too am sad but not surprised by this announcement, particularly as every other tech conference or meeting has been met by the similar fates over the last few weeks.
>
> If running Dconf as an online operation is of interest to any of the organizers, take a look at how LibrePlanet2020 is running their shop.
>
> https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/libreplanet-day-1-can-free-software-carry-an-entire-online-conference-yes-it-can

First I totally agree with Online Conference, but on the other hand I don't think this will fly in this community, because for what I see unfortunately Walter is trapped in the past and for him it's: in-person meeting or NOTHING.

I came to this conclusion after seeing his responses in this thread, like:

> I'm pretty upset about it, I was really looking forward to it. But we really had no choice.

Well we have a choice, online meeting.

> Next year, we're going to have it even if a meteor strike is imminent :-)

I know it's a sarcasm, but by this response he prefer to put people's life in risk instead of trying an online version and see how it goes.

> There's just nothing like an in-person meeting, and hefting a pint with friends and colleagues that makes our differences melt away.

Of course, but in this case an online version would be better than nothing.

In the end Walter could have said let's try something online and see how it works, but there were no incentive, and this is strange in the period of time where meeting online is pretty standard and cheaper for many of us.

Sasha.

On Monday, 16 March 2020 at 11:43:58 UTC, SashaGreat wrote:

> First I totally agree with Online Conference, but on the other hand I don't think this will fly in this community, because for what I see unfortunately Walter is trapped in the past and for him it's: in-person meeting or NOTHING.

Walter's opinion is irrelevant to anything beyond his own participation. Anybody can organize an online conference without Walter. (Setting aside issues with your interpretation of what he wrote.)

On Monday, 16 March 2020 at 13:36:02 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Monday, 16 March 2020 at 11:43:58 UTC, SashaGreat wrote:
>
>> First I totally agree with Online Conference, but on the other hand I don't think this will fly in this community, because for what I see unfortunately Walter is trapped in the past and for him it's: in-person meeting or NOTHING.
>
> Walter's opinion is irrelevant to anything beyond his own participation. Anybody can organize an online conference without Walter.

Of course, but I really think that if the heads of organization shown some appreciations and their incentives would help this idea to fly.

> (Setting aside issues with your interpretation of what he wrote.)

I think Walter can speak for himself and don't need any "advocates" in his behalf, and don't diminish my way of interpreting things.

Finally It's pretty clear in this thread that Walter never stood or said anything in favor of online conference.

Sasha.

On Monday, 16 March 2020 at 13:59:44 UTC, SashaGreat wrote:
> On Monday, 16 March 2020 at 13:36:02 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> On Monday, 16 March 2020 at 11:43:58 UTC, SashaGreat wrote:
>>
>>> First I totally agree with Online Conference, but on the other hand I don't think this will fly in this community, because for what I see unfortunately Walter is trapped in the past and for him it's: in-person meeting or NOTHING.
>>
>> Walter's opinion is irrelevant to anything beyond his own participation. Anybody can organize an online conference without Walter.
>
> Of course, but I really think that if the heads of organization shown some appreciations and their incentives would help this idea to fly.

"Have an online conference" isn't especially helpful. There haven't been any detailed proposals, and Walter hasn't said anything one way or the other about doing something online.

On 3/16/2020 9:15 AM, bachmeier wrote:
> "Have an online conference" isn't especially helpful. There haven't been any detailed proposals, and Walter hasn't said anything one way or the other about doing something online.

Oh, I'm quite in favor of an online conference. Anyone who wants to step up and take charge of it has my support.

On Monday, 16 March 2020 at 19:36:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/16/2020 9:15 AM, bachmeier wrote:
>> "Have an online conference" isn't especially helpful. There haven't been any detailed proposals, and Walter hasn't said anything one way or the other about doing something online.
>
> Oh, I'm quite in favor of an online conference. Anyone who wants to step up and take charge of it has my support.

Same here.