291–300 of 507 posts
https://weblog.masukomi.org/2018/03/25/zed-shaws-utu-saving-...
https://savingtheinternetwithhate.com/
DEFCON presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziTMh8ApMY4
So you're screwed if you don't have any connections. In that way it's just like meat space.
Nobody is screwed in the Ghostty project. Simply open a discussion to discuss your idea.
It 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.
I built a side project to solve this for myself that’s basically an inbox toll system. It funnels emails from unknown senders into a hidden mailbox and auto replies to the sender with a payment link. After the sender pays, the email gets released to recipient’s main inbox. Recipient can set custom toll amounts, whitelist, etc. Would be happy to share the code, just lmk!
If upstream can’t be bothered to fix such stuff (we’re talking major functionality gaps that a $10-100/month LLM can one-shot), isn’t my extremely well tested fix (typically a few dozen or maybe hundred lines) something they should accept?
The alternative is getting hard forked by an LLM, and having the fork evolve faster / better than upstream.
Telling people like me to f—— off is just going to accelerate irrelevance in situations like this.
To play devil’s advocate: We’ve vendored a few open source projects by just asking an LLM to fix obvious bugs that have been open for 12+ months (some projects are abandoned, others active). If upstream can’t be bothered to fix such stuff (we’re talking major functionality gaps that a $10-100/month LLM can one-shot), isn’t my extremely well tested fix (typically a few dozen or maybe hundred lines) something they shou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It feels like the problem here comes from the reluctance to utilize a negative sum outcome for rejection. Instead of introducing accidental perverse incentives, if rejected your stake shouldn't go to the repo, 50% could be returned, and 50% deleted. If it times out or gets approved you get 100% back. If a repo rejects too often or is seen doing so unfairly reputation would balance participation.
To people who don't like this, ask yourself the following: would you complain to someone who had a too strict spam filter or firewall? Or would you be like, we'll work it out? That is how I regard this function: as a (crowdsourced / WoT) spam filter or firewall. Can it be annoying? For sure. Will you work around it if needed? If it is worth the hassle, yes. How many important emails have been lost due to spam filters…
I think that’ll also happen to most open source projects that adopt a policy of silent auto-rejection of contributions without review.
The contributions I’ve seen from such people in the open source projects I’ve worked on ranged from zero to negative value, and involved unusually large amounts of drama.
I can imagine things are different for some projects. Like maybe debian is trying to upstream a fix?
Even then, can’t they start the PR with a verifiable intro like “I maintain this package for debian.”?
For the other 99% of welcome contributions, intros typically are of the form: “I was hired to work on this by one of the industrial teams that maintain it”
To play devil’s advocate: We’ve vendored a few open source projects by just asking an LLM to fix obvious bugs that have been open for 12+ months (some projects are abandoned, others active). If upstream can’t be bothered to fix such stuff (we’re talking major functionality gaps that a $10-100/month LLM can one-shot), isn’t my extremely well tested fix (typically a few dozen or maybe hundred lines) something they shou…