usea

You're right that it's a matter of incentives, but it's because of cost not revenue.

It's bloated not because of a sneaky plan to include revenue generation. It's cheaper to make it bloated because quality is costly. They can externalize costs to users and nobody cares.

That's simply not true.

Another way to frame that question is: Should we remove the right for people to enter into such contracts?

> Getting abused is deserved at this point

Nobody deserves to be abused.

> It's been kept around because they treat their customers ok, but they absolutely exsanguinate their developers.

This is true, but "treat their customers ok" goes a long way. When everybody else severely abuses their customers, the one company that doesn't generates a lot of goodwill.

People routinely overestimate how much can get done in 5 minutes. I ran a live coding challenge at our company's booth at a language conference. 5 simple problems, how many can you do in 5 minutes? We had a PC with IDE open and ready to go, function signatures pre-written with empty bodies, unit tests running to color an icon red/green next to your function. The first problem was return "hello world". They were things covered by the standard library like reverse a list, or filter, or map. Everybody thought it would be too easy.

Nobody could get more than 3 of them. Most people were shocked that 5 minutes was up already. My coworker who did interviews for our company was shaken that he had been judging applicants too harshly after he couldn't finish.

They were trivial problems. But 5 minutes is a very short amount of time.

That's exactly how I do it. Makes the most sense to me.

It's common for non-lawyers to write terms and conditions, and other contracts.

You can view posts by opening them in a new tab.

Press releases are lies by default.

The parent was talking about different passwords, not different emails. But I'm curious, what does it mean for a company to consolidate accounts? How would that be done to your separate accounts automatically, and what trouble does it cause? And what is the normal case where people have multiple accounts all with the same email?

I just don't understand the circumstance you're describing.

I think this comment is referencing the government's recent announcement[0] to shut down the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. They do climate research at the Mesa Laboratory there.

It's open to the public for visits. They have a small science museum, offices, a library, etc. I highly recommend anyone with interest and opportunity to visit the mesa lab soon. It may not be open much longer. The view alone is worth the trip, and the building is cool too.

[0]: https://x.com/russvought/status/2001099488774033692

Retribution for acting out of line with those who have this sanction power.

Russia.

In the US, letting your children walk to school is taking a non-negligible risk that you'll be charged with a crime or have your children taken away. Their deaths from a motor vehicle are assumed by all to be a certain eventuality, and parents are more likely to be blamed for it than drivers.

> But certainly the game Portal (2007) hyped using portals for rendering prior to Prey.

They were referring to Prey (2006).

Europeans having stronger opinions than others about Russia invading Europe is not evidence of a conspiracy.

I found this context via search https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42254608

It's a straightforward recounting of the events.

That's not how people use it, such as the person I replied to. There was no consent, explicit or otherwise. They use it to mean "I want things to be this way, so people should be obligated to a rule I made up because 'society'".

Imagine you have a strong deference to authority and an incredible fear of confrontation. It would be very easy for someone in a position of authority to take advantage of you.

People don't always do what's in their best interest. People talk to the police without a lawyer all the time. People sign away their rights just because they don't want to push back on things. It takes guts to stand up for yourself.

"Social contract" is a term people use to try and bully people into things they never agreed to. Non-imaginary contracts require acceptance.

The essential elements of a social contract:

- I want it to be true real bad

- Other people are forced to comply with it

- I dictate the terms unilaterally

Burning wood in your fireplace is much more certain to harm you than using plastic in your cookware, and the harm is more severe.

> You have to be a real pos to not get invites to stuff...

The "real pos" is just as often those doing the excluding, as it is those being excluded. Pettiness doesn't disappear at 18 years old. It's hurtful to assume anyone being excluded from something deserved it.

Also the Simpsons scene with the Smokey Bear statue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-q-3fPYw_Y

> "Only who can prevent forest fires?" [You] [Me]

> Bart selects "You".

> "You pressed 'You', referring to me. That is incorrect. The correct answer is 'You'!"

> I’d love to hear how he justifies taking away this engineers’ Sunday?

His posts on slack [1] show that he sees it as "either with us or against us", and he's willing to harm users to force them to choose a side instead of staying neutral. He probably hopes that people will blame WP Engine for it.

I think his real goal is tortious interference. Hurting devs who use ACF is just a bonus.

[1] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1843963052183433331.html

If the delivery service that transported my vendor's goods to me, suddenly started substituting their own product instead, I would sue them. I think my vendor would be pissed too, especially if the main difference is that their monetization was torn out.

This behavior would land people in jail in a more serious industry.

When a user uses some open source software, there is no negative happening. They are not accumulating some debt that should be repaid by "contributing back." If they make a million dollars on it, that makes no difference to the project. Agreeing to a license and then following that license is not "bad faith."

The only damage being done when someone makes money using open source software, is to the ambitions and ego of a developer who imagined that "open source" meant "give me your contributions so I can build an empire." Fortunately, open source is for the benefit of all of us. Nobody owes them fiefs.

> There is a social contract that people should contribute back

No there isn't. The author gets to decide the contract, not you or anyone else.

I am the one who decides how to license my software. If I don't want to require my users to contribute, I don't have to. If I wanted to include such an obligation, I would have.

You don't get to hold users of my projects to unwritten, made-up obligations. You don't get to bully people online who aren't following your imaginary rules. My users and I have a contract. We both agreed to it. You don't get to step in between us and alter the agreement we made. How dare you.

The assertion that users must contribute to open source projects despite the license, is an attack on users, developers, and a just and free society. Developers must be able to license their software how they see fit. You want to take that freedom away from me, in the pursuit of hurting people you don't like.

I interviewed at a place whose sprint planning took a full week and was reportedly incredibly stressful. Customers participated. Their product was a website that agile teams used to track their process.

Even 8 years ago that was a safe view to hold.