jka

This article provides one possible approach (and includes links to an example implementation): https://blog.jakubholy.net/2013/09/05/blue-green-deployment-...

I don't know what the best answer to that potential problem is: I think users should continue to be allowed to comment on any issue.

However I do think that the amount of analysis and effort that the user has done for each comment is relevant.

Silly hypothetical example: if a project is a Fibonacci function that (incorrectly) prints nothing but repeated "1" values, then the potential range of comments may include:

- "it's wrong"

- "it's printing the wrong output"

- "expected to see 1 1 2 3 ... but found 1 1 1 1 ..."

- "line two is missing an addition operator near character five"

- "please see #3 for a pull request to add an addition operator on line two"

(roughly in order of estimated "most frequent" to "least common" comment volume -- and not coincidentally, also ordered from "least analysis" to "most analysis" performed)

Not all participants have the same level of analysis and development ability - and for many projects there's a lot of surrounding domain knowledge (and/or history) required to post more valuable comments.

Also worth noting: high-frequency, low-analysis comments along the lines of "it's broken" can still be useful - they're often an indicator that a bug has been introduced, and can be the equivalent of comment storms on Twitter asking whether a service is down after a website/API has an outage.

Coming back to the problem: it's difficult to scale the ability of small groups of maintainers to respond to large volumes of comments - as the article alludes to, it can become a kind of "time denial of service" attack. I'd guess that problem is most pronounced for developer-and-end-user-facing projects (web frameworks, for example).

One solution could be tools that help maintainers cluster and categorize comments -- customer support tools are often designed to do this.

Another idea is whether it'd be possible to challenge the commentor gently to check whether they've provided all the relevant information. This could theoretically be conversational (human or automated) -- and that's similar to tech support in traditional IT.

Finally, a structural solution is to attempt to choose software architectures that distribute the support load and allow clusters of maintainers and developers to develop expertise in particular areas. This is, to a large extent, naturally the way that open source evolves. If one project becomes too heavyweight, then frequently we'll see smaller libraries emerge that provide the core functionality elements with a smaller code surface. If development slows unacceptably or moves in problematic directions, then motivated actors generally step in to fork or create an alternative.

In summary: I think that these ticket entitlement issues have likely existed in closed environments for a long time, and there are patterns and tools for dealing with them that may be valuable. Also it's a software-and-organizational architecture issue (in an evolutionary environment with no central authority).

Good news: it looks like the server-side crawler code that the browser extension sends content to is open source too: https://github.com/mwmbl/crawler-server

Fair point, yep. Generalizing your statement slightly:

> Be generous if you expect additional <reward> to come from this generosity.

Options for reward could include (without being limited to): "profit", "platform adoption", "trust".. and those rewards often affect each other over time.

> The directors have a legal responsibility to the company and to boost the share price, not for the betterment of humanity.

That's an often-repeated maxim, but it's not universally agreed to be true.

Quoting https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/08/24/stakeholder-gover... for example:

"The fiduciary duty of the board is to promote the value of the corporation. In fulfilling that duty, directors must exercise their business judgment in considering and reconciling the interests of various stakeholders—including shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, the environment and communities—and the attendant risks and opportunities for the corporation.

Indeed, the board’s ability to consider other stakeholder interests is not only uncontroversial—it is a matter of basic common sense and a fundamental component of both risk management and strategic planning."

At the time of writing, the upvote:downvote ratio on the announcement issue is almost 1:20, so I'm initially skeptical about your implication that this is some kind of fringe part of the developer community.

To me it seems more likely to be a culture clash - one team is used to developing closed source tools that have been highly prized by the company in the past, and another team has had great success writing open source tools that are widely adopted.

My guess is that the adapter code project is currently within the former team's remit, leading to this situation -- but that's all complete conjecture on my behalf.

That's not a use case that it's been designed for so far, but I'd be interested to hear whether it provides any assistance as-is, and equally if it doesn't.

Equipment availability, ingredient weight, and nutritional content seem like they'd be (some of) the factors to bear in mind for camp cooking.

I make no promises at all I'm afraid, but the 'planner'[1] microservice is the one to watch if you'd like to follow future developments related to this.

[1] - https://github.com/openculinary/planner/

Designed to help with questions like "what meals can I make with the ingredients I have in the kitchen?", RecipeRadar is a free and open source recipe search engine.

The RecipeRadar interface is designed for use with both desktop and mobile web browsers, and it can be installed locally on your device (it is delivered as a progressive web application).

Source code for all components are available at https://github.com/openculinary/ alongside infrastructure setup documentation for anyone who would like to self-host their own RecipeRadar instance (not required to use the app, and primarily provided for advanced/curious technical users).

Hehe, ah, of course :)

I wasn't able to find out about that, from a quick scout around - could you share a link to it?

(I did find BotHack[1] and a video of its' first ascension[2], both of which are cool)

[1] - https://github.com/krajj7/BotHack

[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unCQHAbGsAA

One interesting result from this challenge that could stoke debate is that symbolic (rules-based) agents are clearly achieving better results than neural (machine-learning-based) agents.

Maybe that's related to the nature of NetHack itself, compared to other games where ML has seen (often overwhelming) success?

Will rules-based systems continue to succeed for NetHack, or is this a temporary condition until the state-of-the-art in machine learning improves?

> The body said "purpose-based access control" was a term which had been used in the computing industry for 20 years

I can find references to "policy-based access control" (same acronym) going back decades (and plenty of mentions of the widely-used and understood RBAC) but not purpose-based access control. Is it the same thing, or is there some confusion here?

Quoting[1] the FDA:

"Lowering nicotine in cigarettes to a minimally or non-addictive level through the creation of a potential nicotine product standard could decrease the chances that future generations become addicted to cigarettes, and could make it easier for more currently addicted smokers to quit."

[1] - https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/health-effects-tobacco-...

Can you migrate storage of your SSH keys in Bitwarden to custom fields[1]? Those should -- I think -- be exported with the contents of the vault.

[1] - https://bitwarden.com/help/custom-fields/#custom-fields-for-...

Possibly; the original author hasn't abandoned the project (although may contribute to either repository, by the sounds of it).

(ref: https://github.com/SunshineStream/Sunshine/issues/39)

> As has been pointed out repeatedly, you could take a football field, dig down a few stories, and put all the nuclear waste needed for energy generation in there

Here are mentions of this talking point on Hacker News:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Perhaps they're not required, but they can help during high-stakes competition between nations.

This doesn't really answer your question about why there aren't many options, but: did you find mailpile[1] on your travels? It could be worth considering too.

[1] - https://www.mailpile.is/

If you'd like help with an open source pull request, tech support, or following up on some weird issue (particularly for any Python-based applications), let me know. No promises, but I'm glad to take a look for free, since you have provided the same opportunity to others (and I enjoy solving problems). You shouldn't be made to feel bad for helping other people out. And that also doesn't rule out finding a role and environment that pays you fairly for useful work. Good luck!

Fortunately there's an (unofficial) web service API: https://pi.delivery/#apipi_get :)

"In this study, in which we linked U.S. mortality and election data from 2001 to 2019, people in counties that voted for Republican presidential candidates were more like to die prematurely than those in counties that voted for Democratic candidates, and the gap has grown sixfold over the last two decades. We found similar results when we looked only at counties that voted for one party’s candidate throughout that period, as well as when we used state election data for governors."

And a link to the paper ("Political environment and mortality rates in the United States, 2001-19: population based cross sectional analysis") that the article describes: https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj-2021-069308

(note: the shared-board-seats is mostly a lazy, hypothetical and probably unlikely example. similar issues could probably occur due to vocal activist investors, capital funds, potentially even pools of shareholders aligned on similar goals. these theories rest on the idea that consumer adoption of products isn't entirely organic and rational, and that demand can be manufactured/guided)

You do have a point, and I agree that making the production-side clean should be a large focus, but there are valid arguments for reducing consumption, too, I think.

Supply of energy is limited, and so there is a market effect: overconsumption by some players can increase the cost to other consumers.

Market economics should mean that the resulting increase in profit margin turns into an opportunity for more-cost-effective competitive entrants.

Most of this assumes no collusion between players in the market. If, for example, company A provides a product that is knowingly energy-inefficient and half of their board members also sit on the board of energy company B that is experiencing record profits -- and could easily acquire company C that theoretically has a cheaper energy production solution -- then perhaps problems could occur.

There are (at least) two interpretations of the title, I think:

- [event] A policy change has taken place and the legal residency status of the children of tech workers in the U.S.A. has been altered

- [fact] Many children of tech workers lose their legal residency status in the U.S.A.

Got it, that makes sense - thank you!

Question for someone with knowledge of (computational?) chemistry: is MIT's Reaction Mechanism Generator[1] software (and associated database[2]) a step in this direction?

[1] - https://reactionmechanismgenerator.github.io/RMG-Py/index.ht...

[2] - https://rmg.mit.edu/database/

If you need a chaser after this, I can recommend "Pls Like" - https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p06l2nvb/pls-like

Oh man, I love Python but what you say does sound truthful to me. Do you think that other programming languages are more resilient to this? (I'm trying to figure out whether there are some intrinsics of Python that make it more susceptible, and if so whether that could be mitigated)

For the sake of argument I'll agree with you. Even then, there's a key difference between the two software stacks: anyone could improve LibreOffice.

Could you name an issue you have with Calc that makes you feel it is inferior to Excel? (something more specific than look-and-feel, ideally, although I admit that may be a factor in reality)

Somewhat agreed, although to be fair, the other migration paths do seem more reasonable:

> MS Office Suite ==> LibreOffice Suite

> Illustrator ==> Inkscape

> IE/Edge ==> Firefox