I stopped reading at the point he described Basecamp as having imploded.

Can we please at least try to be a little more objective in how we use language?

You may agree or disagree with what Basecamp, now 37signals, did but the company did not “implode”.

Many of their employees - one third - did disagree with what they did and chose to leave.

Was their leaving a protest? Well, maybe. But IIRC they were offered very generous severance terms, which would have made that choice much easier to make and so perhaps robs it of some of its value as a protest.

And what about the company? Well, as far as I can tell, they seem to be doing fine. They’re offering junior devs, was it 125k or 150k US fully remote? Somewhere in that ballpark anyway. And just about anywhere within a certain range of time zones. That’s not a sign of a company that’s struggling.

I have read DHH’s blog post about London, and I am a Brit, so think I can offer a somewhat qualified point of view here. DHH is correct about the demographic changes in London over the past decades, but he’s absolutely wrong to cast Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) as some kind of good faith activist standing up for the rights of ordinary British folks. The guy is a criminal and a low-life grifter. I can’t even really call him a fascist because I’m not convinced he really believes a word he’s saying. So I’ll stick with con-artist.

Back to the post: the most charitable interpretation I can put on it is that DHH simply hasn’t done his homework on Robinson. Is that an accurate characterisation? I honestly don’t know.

And I don't even know much of these stuff is related to Ruby Central Is Not Behaving in Good Faith. Not a good sign for an article if it's for showing evidence... (maybe it's not

I wish I can see more summary, state facts mostly (with sources even they might not be reliable but better than just guessing without source)

Both sexist and ageist in one comment. Surprised you didn't manage to cram in homophobia.

You can pretend simple biology doesn’t exist all you want but reality does not care and teenage girls and teenage boys will continue to act in their respective clichéd ways because of developing brains and different hormones creating behaviours that define that period when humans come of age.

Sure, OK. But why is "teenage girl" being used as a pejorative?

Is there something wrong with writing like a girl?

It isn't being used as a pejorative. But an adult person shouldn't write like an emotionally unstable teenager if they want to be taken seriously. Teenage girls have a particularly clichéd way of writing and communicating. That's it. Being emotionally unstable isn't a pejorative either; it's part of growing up. It's called adolescence, when the brain is in a particularly turbulent and dynamic part of development.

I can't remember exactly what the now flagged comment said, but there is something odd and affected about adopting the slang/jargon of people a generation younger than you.

Reading this post is like playing 2021 Internet Millennial Outrage Bingo. It's quite fun if you make a game of it.