The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable • Hacker News Board

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#411

Post by abrugsch » Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 9:07 AM UTC

cherryteastain wrote: post #213

dale_glass wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need cryptocurrencies to commit tax fraud. The problem isn't being technically unable to get the money.

I guess then everyone accepting 50 quid from a mate for fixing up their car or something is also commiting tax fraud. Immaterial amounts like this are not on tax authorities' radar. And if you are making a material amount, nothing is stopping you from doing the right thing and reporting your side income anyway. Crypto just reduces the hassle.

Until a couple of years ago, Yes(officially). Then HMRC codified what they had effectively been doing already which is to look away for small amounts. There is now officially a £1000 buffer for you to legally earn on the side. You don't need to report it, in fact there isn't even a place to put it on the self assessment forms (unless it's changed this tax year where they've started to be more active on side hustle money - I'll find out when I get round to filling in the SA form - probably mid Jan...)

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#412

Post by blitz_skull » Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 1:06 PM UTC

rpastuszak wrote: post #263

blitz_skull wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is it written that being an OSS contributor should be a sustainable career? Just go write software for a company if that’s what you want to do. But why there’s an expectation that “open” source software should pay anyone is beyond me.

> Where is it written that being an OSS contributor should be a sustainable career? Why shouldn't it?

I’m not saying it shouldn’t. I said where is it written? Why does everyone act like it’s a foregone conclusion?

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#413

Post by robertlagrant » Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 3:16 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #285

robertlagrant wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you prefer everyone (of course with some minor exceptions for higher ups) to be equally "not great, but not terrible" or do you prefer some to have amazing lives, but others to suffer? This isn't the choice. Socialism (actual socialism) repeatedly starves its populations. Capitalism repeatedly creates situations where new things are created that make everyone's lives better, and existing things get cheaper and b…

> Capitalism repeatedly creates situations where new things are created that make everyone's lives better, and existing things get cheaper and better over time In theory. In practice, can you really say that existing things are getting cheaper and better, generally? Most of the Western world is seeing unprecedented price increases combined with record profits in multiple industries (so it's not just general inflation…

I'd say so. I think phones, bikes, cars, computers, games, glasses, medicines, prosthetics, toys, houses[0], tools, food, holidays, vehicle hire, vehicle type, plane flights, etc etc are a lot better than they were even 20, 50, and 100 years ago.

Price increases are almost always unprecedented, unless they previously went down. They are now going up, but not because of capitalism. Because of Covid spending, fuel price increases, minimum wage increases, etc etc. Macroeconomic effects (that we can debate the goodness of somewhere else), but generally ones related to government rather than business. This is though a very recent view, though. Are car prices, for the same quality of car, really better now than 30 years ago? Or has a pretty relentless competitive market for car manufacturers made cars far better value than they once were?

I don't think there have been drastic quality reductions of any kind in many areas.

"Enshitification" is a very narrow view of I think online platforms, particularly VC-backed ones starting free and looking for a sustainability too late; definitely not generalisable to "capitalism".

[0] maybe not aesthetically