This is concerning, it feels a bit tragedy-of-the-commons I suppose where having public tests are a valuable public good, thought I can't quite get the analogy straight in my head.
> feels a bit tragedy-of-the-commons ... I can't quite get the analogy straight in my head
I have a personal theory that "tragedy of the commons" has a very specific meaning, and beyond this meaning it just adds confusion. This isn't your fault - it's an overused phrase.
I'd try to examine the root of your discomfort. Why does it make you feel bad? Avoid thinking about "big ideas" like the commons or the public good.
I'm thinking of migrating to ExcaliDraw or Xournal++ next time I need a whiteboard.
The performative closing of public contributions citing the slop scare felt disingenuous from the start. You couldn't be bothered to implement _any_ mitigations that leave the community engaged with the project?
Writing a contributor karma bot, moving to a non-social or obscure git forge (most slop contributors are resume farming and GitHub is the only forge the HR cares about), newbie-unfriendly non-public workflows like git send-mail, or references from Discord... This isn't an AGI on the other side of the screen, planning the perfect strategy to infiltrate your project; it's a sub-script-kiddie trying to fill a portfolio with quick "contributions" doing the more annoying version of "fixing typos" in docs.
The headline should be changed, because it is moving from one closed source repo to another closed source repo, and on HN misleading headlines tend to be corrected even if they're deliberate on the part of the authors.
simonw correctly describes it as "not technically open source" - though OSI doesn't have the trademark, the term open source, capitalized or not, refers to the what the Open Source Definition codifies. There are other terms such as shared source, for this sort of stuff.
This is interesting because it’s also one of SQLite’s monetizations. SQLite is in the public domain, but you need a commercial license to access their TH3 test harness with 100% branch coverage used to validate SQLite on different platforms.
The "this wasted my time" comments are missing the point...
In addition to his great sense of humor, Steve is usually ahead of the curve in terms of trends. There's a lesson in this. LLMs have become incredible constraint solvers ("SAT-solvers for code"). Well-thought-out tests, types, specs, and docs are all incredibly valuable constraints. This has big implications - for example what happens to licenses when you can cheaply rewrite the codebase and therefore unencumber it.
Whether this was a joke or a backtracking, or this dared waste your oh so precious time- You're missing the forest for the trees. There's extreme covert and even overt hostility between how people stand on AI's gluttonous usage of the commons.
We're about to waltz into a deep period of tension between developers, and people who, empowered by multimillion dollars corporations, bravely violate developers' copyrights in the hopes of replacing their jobs, while bullying these same developers who dare express their discontent.
Why would they go to all the trouble of summarising the test counts in the context and writing out the full removal scope across two comment posts as a "joke"?
I'd believe it was a joke if was a one-liner but this has far more detail then that.
this issue was more of a joke (am I allowed to do that?)
Not really a fan of the qualification here to possibly scare people off from calling them out either.
To clear, I have no problem with them hiding the repo, I have no problem with them changing their mind after the blowback, but it's frustrating when they can't own these decisions and try to hide behind it being a "joke".
23 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 50.5 ms ] threadI have a personal theory that "tragedy of the commons" has a very specific meaning, and beyond this meaning it just adds confusion. This isn't your fault - it's an overused phrase.
I'd try to examine the root of your discomfort. Why does it make you feel bad? Avoid thinking about "big ideas" like the commons or the public good.
[1] https://github.com/tldraw/tldraw/issues/8082#issuecomment-39...
The performative closing of public contributions citing the slop scare felt disingenuous from the start. You couldn't be bothered to implement _any_ mitigations that leave the community engaged with the project?
Writing a contributor karma bot, moving to a non-social or obscure git forge (most slop contributors are resume farming and GitHub is the only forge the HR cares about), newbie-unfriendly non-public workflows like git send-mail, or references from Discord... This isn't an AGI on the other side of the screen, planning the perfect strategy to infiltrate your project; it's a sub-script-kiddie trying to fill a portfolio with quick "contributions" doing the more annoying version of "fixing typos" in docs.
"Sorry folks, this issue was more of a joke (am I allowed to do that?) but I'll keep the issue open since there's some discussion here."
simonw correctly describes it as "not technically open source" - though OSI doesn't have the trademark, the term open source, capitalized or not, refers to the what the Open Source Definition codifies. There are other terms such as shared source, for this sort of stuff.
Source: https://corecursive.com/066-sqlite-with-richard-hipp/
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27718701
In addition to his great sense of humor, Steve is usually ahead of the curve in terms of trends. There's a lesson in this. LLMs have become incredible constraint solvers ("SAT-solvers for code"). Well-thought-out tests, types, specs, and docs are all incredibly valuable constraints. This has big implications - for example what happens to licenses when you can cheaply rewrite the codebase and therefore unencumber it.
We're about to waltz into a deep period of tension between developers, and people who, empowered by multimillion dollars corporations, bravely violate developers' copyrights in the hopes of replacing their jobs, while bullying these same developers who dare express their discontent.
This is not gonna end well.
I'd believe it was a joke if was a one-liner but this has far more detail then that.
this issue was more of a joke (am I allowed to do that?)
Not really a fan of the qualification here to possibly scare people off from calling them out either.
To clear, I have no problem with them hiding the repo, I have no problem with them changing their mind after the blowback, but it's frustrating when they can't own these decisions and try to hide behind it being a "joke".
trust me this was never a serious proposal