pl90087

If your philosophy is to do a PR at least every few days then the negative impact of this was likely negligible, especially comparing to have a fellow dev being out with having broken arms for a few months.

If you do PRs every few weeks then that could be a bigger issue. But then this should be a lesson to just not do that. Merge small steps often. It has tons of advantages.

Right. But I don't want to have to dig into settings hierarchies for those knobs. The threashold for that is too high and almost nobody will bother and do that. Something easier with simple sliders would be much better.

I wish all information-leaky browser features were turned off by default and I could easily turn them on on demand when needed. Like, the browser could detect that a webpage accesses one of them and tells me that I am currently experiencing a degraded experience which I could improve by turning this slider on.

The problem could be one level up though. It's not just the implementation of a part that's incomprehensible but the design/architecture of how some of the parts interact.

Complete with fake testimonials. I'll be downvoted for this, but that product is borderline unethical.

Aside from the contents, let's all take a moment to admire the simplicity of this page. A few animated pictures and everybody got right away what's going on. Absolutely amazing!

And the problem our industry has is that these concepts are not well-defined. You can easily have engineer A strongly claim that the code that was put in front of them from engineer B is terribly designed and will be unmaintainable and then they write an alternative proposal that they love, and then the next guy C comes with the exact criticism of the alternative, and the twist is that C is actually B, the guy who wrote the originally criticized code. You can watch this kind of stuff first hand here in HN discussions. It's so sad, it's actually pretty comical again if you are not vested in it.

I see. How do you prevent them from submitting another bounty though? Should you warn them that next time you will not accept a PR? I mean, the wheel otherwise just turns one more time and you are back in the same seat.

Defining as acceptance criterion "must fit my style" is just not concrete enough..

I suppose that even covers a more intricate case: Somebody submits a PR, lots of discussions back and forth, lots of asks from the project, finally the submitter gives up since they don't want to keep spending time on things that start diverging from the original ask. After that, the code is there, the project eventually takes the code and integrates it themselves after little work. Or a lot of extra work.

What I'm trying to say is: The line could be blurry. The PR code quality could be crap and the project really needs to invest a lot of time to make this fit for merge, in which case they rightfully refuse the bounty. But it could be that the code quality is great and they are just trying to misuse this to make people do more than they originally wanted. And the difference between those scenarios could be hard to see for somebody external. Or even for the parties involved: The project could legitimately think that the code is not of sufficient quality while the submitter could legitimately think that they satisfied the request.

Who is the arbitter? Will people tend to accept the PR anyway (silently clean up and spend time afterwords), not wanting to risk their reputation? Or will submitters tend to accept major changes, possibly beyond the original ask, not wanting to risk their reputation? Seems a bit to me like a problem also faced by Airbnb and similar services.

Some people also learn that they need a catchy/clickbaity headline to make money.

That's not at all what the study "finds".

It found a correlation between cardiovascular health and walking a certain amount a week. This does not at all suggest causation. I'm not nitpicking here. The most likely reason for this is that people who have a significantly more healthy life style have better cardiovascular health while also happening to move significantly more. Just getting up and walking 8k steps twice a week and otherwise having unhealthy lifestyle of the control group is possibly going to do nothing for your cardiovascular health. Claiming anything else needs much different evidence than the linked study.

Edit: I'm not saying walking is bad for you. That's just as wrong. I'm saying just walking won't do much for you. Get a more healthy lifestyle. Cardiovascular health will follow and you'll notice that 16k steps or something comparable will look small compared to what your active/healthy lifestyle will do.