Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vouch

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 507 posts

Re: Vouch

#241

Post by potsandpans »

mitchellh wrote: post #200
yencabulator wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. all revolving around a proprietary Microsoft service. Support Microsoft or be socially shunned?

Vouch is forge-agnostic. See the 2nd paragraph in the README: > The implementation is generic and can be used by any project on any code forge, but we provide GitHub integration out of the box via GitHub actions and the CLI. And then see the trust format which allows for a platform tag. There isn't even a default-GitHub approach, just the GitHub actions default to GitHub via `--default-platform` flag (which makes sen…

I would rather stop contributing to open source rather than interact with your gatekeeping social experiment.

Re: Vouch

#242

Post by defen »

ctoth wrote: post #170

Ah, we have converted a technical problem into a social problem. Historically those are vastly easier to solve, right? Spam filters exist. Why do we need to bring politics into it? Reminds me of the whole CoC mess a few years back. Every time somebody talks about a new AI thing the lament here goes: > BUT THINK OF THE JUNIORS! How do you expect this system to treat juniors? How do your juniors ever gain experience co…

"Juniors" (or anyone besides maintainers) do not fundamentally have a right to contribute to an open source project. Before this system they could submit a PR, but that doesn't mean anyone would look at it. Once you've internalized that reality, the rest flows from there.

Re: Vouch

#243

Post by TurdF3rguson »

Fnoord wrote: post #211
hermanb wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this idea / pet project once where I did exactly this for email. Emails would immediately bounce with payment link and explanation. If you paid you get credit on a ledger per email address. Only then the mail goes through. You can also integrate it in clients by adding payment/reward claim headers.

Bill Gates already had this idea. All efforts to change email were already documented 25 years ago. The biggest changes are it is more centralized these days, SPF/DKIM/DMARC, JMAP innovation, oh... and one more thing! It is HUGE!! HTML email is the default...

Yeah I remember this from "The Road Ahead" which I chanced upon one time in the 90s. I thought it was a silly idea.

Re: Vouch

#244

Post by Tossrock »

kleyd wrote: post #236

Thought experiment: strip a forge down to what plain Git can't do: identity (who?), attestations (signed claims about a ref or actor), and policy (do these claims allow this ref update?). With just those primitives, CI is a service that emits "ci/tested." Review emits "review/approved." A merge controller watches for sufficient attestations and requests a ref update. The forge kernel only evaluates whether claims sat…

Inside the repo as metadata that can be consumed by a provider, like GHA config in .github/. Standardized, at least as an extension like git lfs so it's provider independent. Could work! I've long thought effective reputational models are a major missing piece of internet infrastructure, this could be the beginning of their existence given the new asymmetric threat of LLM output, combined with mitchellh's productivity and recognition.

Re: Vouch

#245

Post by dlahoda »

mijoharas wrote: post #171

Oh and one other thing I was curious about. Did Mitchell comment on why he wrote it in nushell? I've not really messed around with that myself yet. Would people recommend it? I feel like I have such huge inertia for changing shells at this point that I've rarely seriously considered it.

he seems like dislikes go and rust. and likely ts. go and ts were fully legit for such work.

zig is too low level.

Re: Vouch

#246

Post by zx8080 »

hermanb wrote: post #152
k8sToGo wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want me to read your comment, please pay me $1 first... if I find your comment interesting I might refund.

I had this idea / pet project once where I did exactly this for email. Emails would immediately bounce with payment link and explanation. If you paid you get credit on a ledger per email address. Only then the mail goes through. You can also integrate it in clients by adding payment/reward claim headers.

Scammers (and spammers) always got $1! That's why there's a lot of the scam ads on google, fb, apple.

So the paywall email firewall will not work as desired.

Re: Vouch

#247

Post by zx8080 »

Nevermark wrote: post #222
kurtis_reed wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get it refunded

The default could should be to refund. That would make not-refunding culturally crass unless it was warranted. With manual options for: 0. (Default, refund) 1. (Default refund) + Auto-send discouragement response. (But allow it.) 2. (Default refund) + Block. 3. Do not refund 4. Do not refund + Auto-send discouragement response. 5. Do not refund + Block. 6. Do not refund + Block + Report SPAM (Boom!) And typically use…

$10 will be a honeypot for scammers.

Re: Vouch

#248

Post by gruez »

dcre wrote: post #238
tmp10423288442 wrote: post #220

What's the plan to avoid a Bluesky-like bubble from forming around Vouch projects? Say what you want about wanting to avoid politically disagreeable people, but Bluesky has been shrinking gradually since the 2024 election, as people interested in political effectiveness or even avoiding a hugbox have drifted away. Or think about how new projects are generally not started as GPL anymore (except if they want to charge…

“Shrinking since the election”, while technically true, is misleading because the election is when bsky experienced a massive spike in usage that was well over double the average before the election. Usage has been gradually decaying since then to a steady level much higher than it was before the election. If you zoom out to a few years you can see the same pattern over and over at different scales — big exodus event…

>At this point it would make sense to say this is just how Bluesky grows.

>https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats

If you zoom out the graph all the way you'll see that it's a decline for the past year. The slight uptick in the past 1-2 months can probably be attributed to other factors (eg. ICE protests riling the left up) than "[filter bubble] is how bluesky grows".

Re: Vouch

#249

Post by tokyobreakfast »

This totally won't be abused in some way by the drama-free open source community.

Have they shared the lists of developers they want prophylactically blackballed from the community yet?

Re: Vouch

#250

Post by rtpg »

pwdisswordfishs wrote: post #162
HiPhish wrote: post #67

Not sure about this one. I understand the need and the idea behind it is well-intentioned, but I can easily see denouncelists turn into a weapon against wrongthinkers. Said something double-plus-ungood on Twitter? Denounced. Accepted contribution from someone on a prominent denouncelist? Denouced. Not that it was not possible to create such lists before, but it was all informal. The real problem are reputation-farmer…

> The real problem are reputation-farmers. They open hundreds of low-effort PRs on GitHub in the hope that some of them get merged. This will increase the reputation of their accounts, which they hope will help them stand out when applying for a job. So the solution would be for GitHub to implement a system to punish bad PRs. GitHub customers really are willing to do anything besides coming to terms with the reality…

I disagree with the "just"-ness of setting up bugzilla + cgit... but I do wonder how far you could go with just being on literally any platform.

Obviously technically the same things are possible but I gotta imagine there's a bit less noise on projects hosted on other platforms

Post reply on HN