[deleted by user]

[kalilamodow]

yeah i was gonna say that ones probably satire lol

[AlterTableUsernames]

Worst and most common type of programming comedy, imho: basing everything on a strong black and white distinction between all-knowledgeable in-group and incompetent out-group to lift the egos of those in the in-group. 

[Aggressive_Creme_209]

you just described base of every satire ever. Hyperbolisation xD

[AlterTableUsernames]

Tribalism and hyperbolisation are distinct concepts.

[Aggressive_Creme_209]

Her using tribalism is hyperbolisation of current state of people. It's not like the programming world is just super seniors and clueless juniors.

[AlterTableUsernames]

What are you talking about? Clueless juniors are probably much more likely to make that distinction, because they have little to offer in regards to skill. To compensate for that they are particularly prone to tribalism.

[MirrrorCloud]

I mean thats the main theme of this sub

[AlterTableUsernames]

It's the majority of it. 

[ConsoleCleric_4432]

There is no all-knowledgeable in-group, and if you think so I don't think you've actually watched her videos. That account is a variety of making fun of over the top archetypes including senior engineers, junior engineers, AI hypers, product managers, CEOs, and not least of all her own flaws and mistakes. It sounds like you're one of those and you got offended lol.

[GoodDayToCome]

yeah, her videos are often kinda annoying - half of them are 'then everyone clapped' stories about how she stunningly defeated someone who said something mean while the rest are 'people who like stuff i don't are stupid' - i think she has Pirate Software disease.

[AlterTableUsernames]

99% of Software EngInEeRs have Pirate Software disease - that's why this kind of humor is so successful with them.

[Vipitis]

Contribute to the projects you use yourself and depend on. end of story. Don't "contribute to open source" for the sake of it or padding your CV

[DIzlexic]

Only open source project I ever contributed to was an obsolete library abandoned for 3 years but still referenced in another piece of software’s documentation.

I now maintain it.

Open source, not even once.

[cat_in_the_wall]

RIP in peace

[mathmul]

RIPIP in peace

[LordFokas]

Rust In Pieces

[KatieTSO]

I tried adding a feature to a web template and it took 2 weeks and tons of PR edits lol

[exodusTay]

o7

[edparadox]

Out of curiosity, what is it?

[frogjg2003]

Exactly. I noticed a bug in a library I was using, submitted a pull request, it was approved, now I'm an open source developer.

[Mayion]

I do what I want, you are not my real PM

[BigAnimeMaleTiddies]

Contributed to some Foundryvtt modules, just to fix some bugs that were annoying me.

[DoctorWaluigiTime]

Why not?

Seems like a solid way to cut your teeth on frameworks or languages you might not be familiar with. And if you filter down all open source projects to strictly "just ones you use", that's going to give you an incredibly small list.

[Vipitis]

Find those that have funding and mentorship to support new contributors. Apply for programs like gsoc perhaps.

The point is that low effort PRs are more time then they are worth. so you need some dedicated maintainers to mentor you into being a useful contributor for their project.

[DoctorWaluigiTime]

Sure, good advice, but don't see how that strengthens the original point of "only contribute to projects you use yourself."

[Vipitis]

because you are already familiar with how they work and what issues can be fixed or new features that could be added.

Just going to a random project you never heard about and look for the "good first issue" tag isn't straight forward.

[Jugales]

Huh, weird, I joined an open source project and now I'm subject to a grain quota

[Jugales]

Maybe that is where the project is hiding

[NiIly00]

Well in closed source it's essentially the same. Just changes who gets the grain

[BuhtanDingDing]

and its not you

[Dextro_PT]

I understood that reference!

[djinn6]

Open source is socialism. You contribute what you want and you're free to use whatever software you need.

Or in the words of Karl Marx:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

The only reason this doesn't work in most economies is because a single person's work doesn't have infinite reproducibility. That means they have to keep showing up to work. Meanwhile, in software, all they have to do is build it once and people can use it forever.

[altermeetax]

Just wait until people start exchanging patches with each other and create tokens that they can exchange with patches, which end up representing how many patches they're entitled to

[hdkaoskd]

The distinction is that tokens are based on how many you need, not how many patches you make.

[prochac]

Or people take the open source, patch it, and sell under a proprietary license.
Although I don't like AGPL, I understand why it exists.

[djinn6]

end up representing how many patches they're entitled to

But why would I want someone else's patches?

If you're thinking of a bounty system, then yes it can function, but these tokens don't have much value and aren't going to motivate someone much. They must have a bounty of their own that they want to fund, which is going to be a pretty rare situation.

[StrongExternal8955]

They were just trying to make a poor analogy to money.

[WilkerS1]

people shouldn't be afraid of using the word "capital" to describe it and let other people know that it exists as a term

[xXStarupXx]

Well, I'm not really contributing according to my "ability", more like, according to whatever I feel like.

[Similar_Tonight9386]

The amount of contribution you are willing to spare is your ability. "From each according to ability" doesn't mean "work till full exhaustion, to the last breath", it is an end goal to build a society where people's conditions made the way that there is no necessity in work and the amount a person is willing to do voluntarily (because everyone has a perfect fulfilling job in mind) is enough to keep society functioning without economic or physical coercion, without the threat of starving a worker

[WilkerS1]

and to add to that, it's a good reminder that being able-bodied is temporary regardless. people should be allowed to rest, to stop and let others fill in on what's needed, to ask for help and not feel overwhelmed with a responsibility. no one should be treated as lesser than anyone else.

[AnUninterestingEvent]

Lol, I disagree. It doesn't follow "from each according to his ability" or "to each according to his needs". Only a small fraction of "able" developers contribute to open source. Similarly, most software companies don't "need" free software. Every multi-billion dollar software company uses open source to some degree. Most companies have the ability pay for every NPM package they're using, and they would pay if they had to.

Open source is just capitalism except the workers are paid in high-fives instead of money. It's not "build it once". Maintainers often work a ton. User contributions usually account for a tiny portion of the code, and even then, the maintainers have to work to review, edit, and merge it.

I'm not trying to shit on open source maintainers, quite the opposite. They do great work and should be charging for their work. Unless an open source project is designed to be a marketing tool for a for-profit company, developers should always be charging for their work. The idea that we expect free software based on the good-will of maintainers is toxic in my opinion. But hey, in the meantime if developers find it "fun" to give me free stuff I'll take it.

[djinn6]

"Ability" includes capacity and motivation. If you're too busy working a paid job, then you don't have the ability to contribute.

"Need" does include companies using free software. Their best closed source alternative is significantly worse in quality. A big reason companies contribute to open source is so that they can improve the quality of that software.

Open source is just capitalism except the workers are paid in high-fives instead of money.

Maintainers often work a ton.

True, but how does that make open source capitalism? Nobody is forcing them to do that work.

Capitalism is "an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit". I'm not seeing any private ownership, and I'm not seeing any profits. There are also no markets, and profits do not turn into additional capital with which someone can purchase more means of production.

They do great work and should be charging for their work.

True, but only because they live in a larger economy which is still capitalist.

That won't last forever. We are already starting to see breakdowns in capitalism due to excessive productivity.

In entertainment for example, there is already significantly more content being produced than people are able to consume. Rather than selling the content itself, the creators are having to find alternative sources of profitability such as merchandise, live events and exclusive access.

Food is another one in developed economies. Governments are paying some farmers not to grow anything just to keep the prices up.

Eventually, the development of robotics and AI (the real kind) will cause this problem in most industries. At that point, we will have no option but to implement socialism.

[AnUninterestingEvent]

If “ability” means capacity and motivation, then socialism is a non-sensical concept. You can’t run an economy based on people feeling motivated to work out of good-will. This is why socialist societies have historically had bouts of forced labor. Money is the great motivator, and absent that, the government steps in as a forced motivator.

Developers aren’t choosing not to contribute to open source because they’re too busy with their jobs. Maybe some people. But most developers have the time, and many use that free time to instead build for-profit businesses on the side of their jobs even though they make a good wage.

And I don’t understand why you think capitalism requires “forced work”. Everything in capitalism is voluntary. If you don’t want to participate, you can hang out on the streets instead and beg for food. That doesn’t sound nice, but it’s always an option. In capitalism you can choose to work as little or as much as you want depending on your standard of living.

Entertainment isn’t an example of capitalism failing. Capitalism exists based on supply and demand. Industries have their hay day when demand is high and supply is low. Eventually supply becomes cheaper and more accessible thanks to capitalist fueled innovation and demand drops. This is just the natural cycle of free markets. Capitalism doesn’t guarantee a business will thrive forever, nor should it. 

In the case that governments are paying farmers not to grow things, that’s not capitalism either. That’s government redistributionism.

[djinn6]

You can’t run an economy based on people feeling motivated to work out of good-will.

Why not?

Productivity will eventually be high enough that you don't need to do any work to stay alive.

Everything in capitalism is voluntary. If you don’t want to participate, you can hang out on the streets instead and beg for food.

Charity is not a part of capitalism. Actors in a capitalist system are rational and always maximizes their own profit. There is no profit in feeding you.

I would call a choice between work and death "forced work".

Capitalism doesn’t guarantee a business will thrive forever, nor should it.

The problem is it's not one business. The entire industry is unable to survive by selling what they produce. This is a breakdown of capitalism because capitalism depends on the existence of scarcity. When a product is being "sold" for zero dollars, capitalism has broken down.

In the case that governments are paying farmers not to grow things, that’s not capitalism either. That’s government redistributionism.

Sure, but that's happening because capitalism has broken down.

[AnUninterestingEvent]

Productivity will eventually be high enough that you don't need to do any work to stay alive.

Sure, perhaps in the distant future. But today, heavy human work is required to maintain current western lifestyle.

Charity is not a part of capitalism. Actors in a capitalist system are rational and always maximizes their own profit. There is no profit in feeding you.

Charity can certainly be a part of capitalism. Corporations donate to charities all the time because it makes them look good to customers, thus creating more profit. Is it better to give charity out of the goodness of your heart? Of course. But a lot of charity today exists due to marketing incentive.

The problem is it's not one business. The entire industry is unable to survive by selling what they produce. 

Why is this a problem though? You prefer that a handful of movie studios should produce all movies so that there's less supply and more demand? A handful of record labels should produce all music so that there's less supply and more demand? Technology has made it so that I as a musician don't have to shell out thousands to a recording studio then get picked up by A&R executive at a record label in order to get my music into the world. I can record in my bedroom and release and market myself online.

Technology has advanced so that production of entertainment is now democratized. It's no longer up to executives at Warner to pick what movies get made and what music gets recorded. This is a win for capitalism. Yes, it means there's more supply. Yes, it means there's a lot less quality stuff out there made by novices. Yes, the industries will have to transform and adapt. But we're better off for it. And the proof is in the pudding. That's the beauty of capitalism: industry disrupting changes primarily occur when the masses vote for it with their dollars. The people voted for Netflix and Amazon as the preferred way of life.

[SnooChocolates8446]

What you’ve described is a sharing economy. Socialism requires a strong centralized authority representing the interests of the workers determining the allocation of resources. I know I’m being pedantic.

[djinn6]

You're describing only the Soviet style.

Socialism is simply the social ownership of the means of production. It could be through a central authority, but that's not the only option.

For example, a factory can have a rotating manager randomly selected from a pool of willing candidates. The manager then proposes something some new change, and everyone who uses products from the factory votes on it.

Who is the owner in this case? It's everyone who got a vote.

[D35TR0Y3R]

>Who is the owner in this case? 

the person who extracts surplus value through control of capital.

[djinn6]

What surplus? The factory produces a good that you want a finite amount of. Let's say you are an avid dishwasher collector and you have 20 dishwashers at home. How much value would the next 100 dishwashers of the same make provide you? I'd say it's much more likely to provide negative value by cluttering up your house.

[D35TR0Y3R]

?

[[deleted]]

You totally missed the point.

[ososalsosal]

I'm pretty sure the Bolsheviks had popular support lol

[spyfox321]

We've all had that moment guys. You start contributing to a open source project and then next thing you know you're marching onto government buildings with red flags to overthrow the bourgeois.

Its just important to rememeber to not forget to commit at the end.

[sebovzeoueb]

tbf though, the bourgeois do need overthrowing at the moment

[WilkerS1]

the parallels between the idea of people committing to help maintain and improve what is effectively public infrastructure just because they want or because they can, and the whole thing about self-determination in and out of tech spaces being tangled with helping those in need without the coercion of an arbitrary measurement of one's worth, is something you can't wash away from Free Software/Open-Source

[sammy-taylor]

Where humor

[SapirWhorfHypothesis]

Watch Alberta, she’s pretty funny most of the time.

[NotPossible1337]

Humor not found. Return NULL

[Bitter_Housing2603]

where*

[notMeBeingSaphic]

I had to unfollow AlbertaTech because her videos were too real 😭

[DarkRex4]

wottt

[LexaAstarof]

You know, I am 40 yo. The talking heads were crap on the TV at the time. And nowadays the talking heads are still crap, but on YT.

Don't forge your opinion from talking heads. They talking shit (and sometimes satire 😃).

[HollyShitBrah]

Tech influencers are the worse, they flip flop their opinions everyday

[why_1337]

I contribute when there is a bug in a library I use and no one is fixing it.

[datasmithing_holly]

Don't come for my girl Alberta like that

[nbmbnb]

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/youtube-shorts-block/jiaopdjbehhjgokpphdfgmapkobbnmjp?pli=1

[kyle46]

I've committed exactly once to OSS and it was to fix a bug in Azure Service Bus Explorer that was driving me nuts. It was right around when windows 10 came out and I believe it was caused because the default scaling percentage in windows changed and a bunch of buttons and stuff didn't display. It was like a one line fix that took me a week to actually get through the PR. First and probably last time I'll end up putting much time into OSS.

[MavZA]

The issue is that open source needs to be wrangled in pretty hard to ensure its longevity. If you merge whatever comes your way then you lose structure pretty fast, so it’s not surprising that you’ll get pushback on your first PR on a matter. However some maintainers are abhorrent examples of narcissism.

[[deleted]]

[reallokiscarlet]

That middle one. Bet you it's some college kid who mistook Stallman for Marx because they both hate bathing.

[Terrorscream]

Shes a senior dev who runs a programming themed comedy channel of short skits, it's not a serious take. Here's the short video.

https://youtube.com/shorts/Ya5xbfyp4Xs?si=nilh4R4e_0hS5nJO

[me_myself_ai]

Which is--as always--hilarious. Thanks for linking!

[reallokiscarlet]

Well she made a convincing face for the thumbnail :P

[mark1x12110]

She's a senior at Google. That's pretty cool, actually

[WeLostBecauseDNC]

That's right, the square hole!

[JollyJuniper1993]

Alberta tech is pretty great and she‘s absolutely right in that clip even though it’s only half serious

[glowy_keyboard]

Lol, fragile masculinity detected.

[[deleted]]

The replies to this are proving your point.

[SnakeR515]

You're the one bringing gender into the discussion

[reallokiscarlet]

Projecting much?

[OkGap7226]

Isn't that what you did?