I think thats a very smart plan, get the websites that devs frequent up and running relatively reliably to help drive more dev use and therefore more willing contributors.
Paying for dependencies sounds like a good idea. Reduces the incentive to sell out; allows contributors to quit day jobs to focus on fixing bugs and security holes; less likely to result in abandonware.
This was expected, multinationals have always offered a china specific product. Now there are 3 primary markets/product groupings. China, The US and the EU.
Headcount is never secure as AOPs are not set in stone. Always remember that - it takes 1 bad quarter for headcount projections to be completely upended.
But justifying US headcount can be done by using a mix of points 1 and 3 that I mentioned.
It's already pretty rough for new grad right now for that reason, and it's only going to get much worse.
Here’s a definition for you, it sounds like you need one:
Solidarity, A bond of unity between individuals, united around a common goal or against a common enemy
Even if i am in the office and someone is sitting right next to me i still do screenshare. I don't like leaning over peoples shoulder or having people over mine
I think the biggest issue today is it's hard to find blogs and other tiny websites via search engine. You almost have to be on social media for people to find your website.
I have to admit, I have never really understood this need to be found and this focus on discoverability. Unless you are monetizing your audience, why does it matter whether 10, 1000 or 100,000 people read your blog? If I write something on the Internet, or release some open source program, or post a video, I’m not making any money off of views: I’m doing it for myself. So I don’t really ultimately care how many people read it or view it.
I firmly believe the best content on the Internet is not necessarily the stuff optimized for search engines and audience-building. We shouldn’t really care about that.
When people were blogging because it was fun for them, the world was full of various content. Once a few got rich (or at least well-to-do and famous) from it, it all went to hell.
If you're blogging and worrying about "how will readers find me" you're doing it wrong, and are basically doomed to fail.
You blog because you like to write, and readers will slowly accumulate over time. Comments and/or a small forum can work wonders, too, as long as you're protected from spam.
It was hard to get your blog discovered 15 years ago, too. Recall "blogrolls", where blogs would link to other blogs — networking to securing such links would be the analogue to making yourself visible on social media today.
I wonder — in absolute terms, is the number of people you can reach smaller today? It's surely proportionally smaller because the internet is much bigger.
The most value i have ever gotten out of AI for coding was when i refactored about 20 thousand lines of gomega assertions into the more robust complex object matcher pattern. It did a good chunk of the grunt work quickly. was probably 85% accurate.
Many public figures have social media and PR teams to help deal with stuff like this, you really expect that every individual out there should just grow a thick skin as culture is continually encouraging us to have more and more of a public presence? This is the kind of thinking that gives a free pass to entrenched patterns of discrimination and targeted hate speech. It's very possible that emails like this wouldn't just be a spew of random insults but targeted towards a person's very specific triggers, and in that case a thick skin cannot stop a bullet.
I think of it more as a general observation: the people who maintain open source projects that must deal with the public must have thick skin, or they won't last. Acknowledging that there are and will always be assholes like the email writer in the world is not to excuse their behavior. It's great to call out shitty behavior and try to get rid of it, but it will always be around at some low level, that's the reality.
Unfortunately HN is no longer a place where you can assume good faith observations when something like that is said. OP's words play into toxic narratives that need to be called out for the sake of other people reading the comments. I might be wrong about OP's intentions when giving my reply, but I am pushing back against a narrative, not against a specific person.
> I might be wrong about OP's intentions when giving my reply, but I am pushing back against a narrative, not against a specific person.
What narrative? Your comment is vague. Would you mind expanding on this accusation and how it relates to open source, especially when today's maintainers on platforms like GitHub and GitLab have an array of tools at their disposal to deal with issues?
OP replied to my comment and I now see that it makes sense as an observation. The narrative I was referring to is something that I see common in discussions surrounding abuse; "there's nothing to be done about it; [people should] just grow a thick skin." If we agree that this exists, then I posit that it's a toxic thing to say to someone who's coming forward and saying that they're suffering from this. It's also toxic to use that as a way to dismiss measures that we can build in technologically to combat abuse, like building blocking mechanisms or modifying them to make them better. Hope that clarifies things.
You might be correct but it still stands that nothing is added to the discourse by just telling people to grow a thick skin. It's a repulsive attitude and I had to call that out.
I think the "repulsive attitude" I'm referring to is shouting "Just grow a thick skin!" to someone who is saying that they're suffering from abuse. In some cases, the suffering is so acute and so deep ("bullets") that it's not necessarily actionable on the part of the person suffering; rather, it's a call for help that others may respond to.
Try using the language in that email the next time you talk to a cashier and see how long it takes to get you escorted from the premises.
The “don’t feed the trolls” or “just accept that people do this” nonsense has just meant “let scumbags do stuff they’d never be permitted to do in person” as much as they want with no consequences.
It would be trivial for Google to verify this email did come from an actual Gmail account, and then provide information about any associated accounts if it was - their entire business model is built on doing just that.
While we can try to improve the reality, it is the reality today and difficult to improve. There is always a small percentage of people that are bad.
I maintain a couple semi-famous open-sourced projects and get a criticism (of course a milder one than what OP got) once in a while. I read them and only take what is useful.
I always always thank them for feedback whether the feedback is good, bad, or abusive. I never argue that the users are wrong. I might help correct their understanding, but I'd say: I can see why it can be misunderstood.
This is because, if you start arguing with users, it leaves a bad taste in other users even if you are right.
I used to look at one open-sourced project where the maintainers taunted the users to implement the change themselves because it's "the benefit of an open-sourced project". It kinda turned me away from the project.
reply