This looks like a fairly typical engineer's solution to a complex social problem: it doesn't really solve the problem, introduces other issues / is gameable, yet unlikely to create problems for the creator.
Of course creator answers any criticism of the solution with "Well make something better". That's not the point: this is most likely net negative, at least that is the (imo well supported) opinion of critics.
If the cons outway the pros, then doing nothing is better than this.
Vouch
261–270 of 507 posts
Re: Vouch
#262It should just be $1 to submit PR. If PR is good, maintainer refunds you ;) I noticed the same thing in communication. Communication is now so frictionless, that almost all the communication I receive is low quality. If it cost more to communicate, the quality would increase. But the value of low quality communication is not zero: it is actively harmful, because it eats your time.
But one way to get better at communication is try and error. This solution makes trying much harder, and eventually leads less good communicators.
Re: Vouch
#263A lot of the discussion is predicated on this as a "solution" to AI contributions, but I'm a little doubtful of the efficacy. It assumes that everyone in "the community" has similar opinions, but for example, while Mr. Torvalds may call current LLMs crap, he also says LLMs are just like any other tool and doesn't see copyright issues. How are you going to weigh Linux-vouched contributors?
I think the comparisons to dating apps are quite apt.
Edit: it also assumes contributors can't change opinions, which I suppose is also a dating issue
Re: Vouch
#264Re: Vouch
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nushell has great sugar coating but mishandles basics like it will eat errors and get into impossible code paths on control-C. I have given up on it.
may be it improved? when you last time tried?
The issues are still open. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46535621
Re: Vouch
#266> vouch denounce badactor [--reason str]
Simple as. He who is without sin can cast the first stone.
Re: Vouch
#267Users already proven to be trustworthy in one project can automatically be assumed trustworthy in another project, and so on. I get the spirit of this project is to increase safety, but if the above social contract actually becomes prevalent this seems like a net loss. It establishes an exploitable path for supply-chain attacks: attacker "proves" themselves trustworthy on any project by behaving in an entirely helpfu…
I think this fear is overblown. What Vouch protects against is ultimately up to the downstream but generally its simply gated access to participate at all. It doesn't give you the right to push code or anything; normal review processes exist after. It's just gating the privilege to even request a code review. Its just a layer to minimize noise.
Did you experiment with getting an AI to critique incoming PRs, and ignoring ones where it finds clear red flags?
Re: Vouch
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
“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".
That’s what I said: it’s technically true but misleading.
Re: Vouch
#269It should just be $1 to submit PR. If PR is good, maintainer refunds you ;) I noticed the same thing in communication. Communication is now so frictionless, that almost all the communication I receive is low quality. If it cost more to communicate, the quality would increase. But the value of low quality communication is not zero: it is actively harmful, because it eats your time.
This thought pattern leads to crypto. In that world there's a process called "staking" where you lock some tokens with a default lock expiry action and a method to unlock based on the signature from both participants. It would work like this: Repo has a public key. Submitted uses a smart contract to sign the commit with along with the submission of a crypto. If the repo merges it then the smart contract returns the t…
> because crypto brings money so close to engineering it corrupts good product design.
Amen.