Fascinating how they place more importance on how “unwelcome” they would feel if not allowed to carry a gun, versus how physically unsafe others might feel if they were.

America is such a wild place lol. How dangerous can a Rust conference really be?

Not much. Having lived many years abroad, my theory is that America appears to be such a wild and crazy place because we value everyone having a voice. People in America like to let others know of their opinion as freedom of speech is so celebrated here. You don't see shirts and stickers exposing lifestyles and opinions as often abroad, like "I'm the proud parent of an accelerated learner" or "I love God and Guns".

I bet there are people out there outside the US who think that you should protect your safety in a boring computer conference, but you won't ever hear about it. This notion is too fringe and people won't dare say it.

> I bet there are people out there outside the US who think that you should protect your safety in a boring computer conference,

I think you missed my previous point. Angry men with guns being allowed into a boring computer conference (or anywhere else for that matter) is the reason people think they need to protect their own safety in the first place.

Especially bringing up defending his wife. Do people bring their wives to Rust conferences? Or maybe the reason people don't is because it's too dangerous.

LOL. I know Rust programmers can be passionate. But this juxtaposition of Gun Violence and Programming strikes a funny chord.

Can just imagine a Rust conference, and an argument breaks out over memory management, one guy starts yelling about 'borrowing', starts shooting, someone else yells "you can take my pointers out of my dead cold hands", starts shooting. Pandemonium.

To someone writing only C?

I doubt that even a C-only programmer at a Rust conference would be in such danger that it would require firearms to mitigate. But that is my European perspective anyway, perhaps Rust programmers in the USA are significantly more vicious.

I have to say that that part in Rust Trademark Policy also gave me a stop. It's just so weird to single it out.

It's good PR CYA. They ensure that there will be a much lower chance of an article headlined "mass shooting at rust conference" being written.

I am personal'y of the opinion that brands play it too safe in general and people aren't stupid and know that just because a brand happened to be near something bad doesn't mean the brand is responsible and therefore bad, but apparently brands don't agree and they're the ones calling the shots on where they're displayed.

> They ensure that there will be a much lower chance of an article headlined "mass shooting at rust conference" being written.

I don't think this follows. Historically speaking, most mass shootings have occurred at locations that specifically disallow firearms, making them "soft targets" where the cowardly attacker will not have anyone fight back. It doesn't seem logically consistent to assume that this policy item has the effect you are stating.

> most mass shootings have occurred at locations that specifically disallow firearms, making them "soft targets" where the cowardly attacke

Most places with large crowds disallow firearms, and most mass shootings occur at places with crowds. You're confusing correlation with causation.

I’m not making any claim of causality, simply stating that the claim of causality in the opposite direction does not follow.

Oh of all the logic to use, you literally get it backwards by saying gun-free zones are mass-shooting free zones.

HN never change please.

I understood it more as taking current US gun debate to Trademark Policy. Very weird.

I've never had anything to do with guns and I admit I find it weird to want to bring one to a rust conference, ridiculous actually. I do see the point though that whoever came up with these rules is intentionally provoking people. Why would a software project have firearms policy other than as a sort of discrimination or put differently a way of showing the kind of people who are welcome and those who are not. Laws are what they are, and if someone is complying with the law completely unrelated to the software, I don't think my software should have an opinion about that. It's a loud dog whistle and a provocation, not a useful policy.

Eh. Nothing that you quoted would concern me about this person. I am anti-gun and vote that way, but I am mature enough to see the other side's perspective. If a person says he refuses to use Rust because because they prohibit firearms, then as a person I would find it quite understandable, and as an interviewer I would bring it up in the interview to point out that he'll have to work with whatever tech stack we use, and should we switch to Rust, would it be a problem?

Frankly, I think if people won't hire because of a post like this, then the interviewers are the one contributing to the problem.

> Frankly, I think if people won't hire because of a post like this, then the interviewers are the one contributing to the problem.

Totally disagree. For the vast majority of software dev jobs (like 98% of them), you just want someone who shows up and does the work without making much of a fuss. People who openly demonstrate that they are difficult to work with are freely signaling "do not hire me, I will make your life much harder"

Why would you hire someone like that? You'd much rather have someone who is 50% as skilled but gets along with everyone and doesn't make other's lives harder because of their personality

> For the vast majority of software dev jobs (like 98% of them), you just want someone who shows up and does the work without making much of a fuss.

For the vast majority of people who post stuff like that on their blog, they show up and do the work without making much of a fuss.

I know because I've worked with several of them.

Same. Finding out the politics and personal views of some of the people I've worked with would curl most people's toes! But they show and and work without making much of a fuss. In fact they have been some of my favorite people to work with.

> as an interviewer I would bring it up in the interview to point out that he'll have to work with whatever tech stack we use, and should we switch to Rust, would it be a problem?

And you'd have no problem with your coworkers always keeping a gun on them? This seems like a recipe for a workplace incident

GP carries concealed, so by definition you wouldn't know. If you did know, then it's no longer concealed and that's a different issue.

But (depending on where you live) you'd also be surprised how many coworkers carry guns with them. At one company I was shocked. HR put a policy prohibiting concealed carry, and damn near 80% of my team took serious issue with it. It felt like I had accidentally walked into an NRA meeting or something. There were never any issues, and we tended to get into some heated arguments at that place. Turns out most gun carriers recognize and respect the gun and don't just pull it out and start shooting people every time they get offended.

I haven't seen the actual blog post, but my understanding was the comment was about Rust conferences, not workplace.

But sure, the workplace will usually have a policy about guns, and that's more an HR problem than a problem for me as an interviewer. And I'd put the burden on him to enquire about that aspect.

Probably a good idea to take the blog offline and see if the job search situation improves.