Bing!

I think it depends on the project. Some projects are the author’s personal tools that they’ve put online in the off-chance it will be useful to others, not projects they are really trying to promote.

I don’t think we should expect that authors of repos go too out of their way in those cases as the alternative would just be not to publish them at all.

That’s a really interesting perspective I didn’t think I’ve seen before. Thanks for posting.

I know I learned it in high school at one point but definitely isn’t something I would have been able to recall on my own.

We’ll always DRR DRR !

I think the problem is that there is less often something to be said if you agree. Every now and then you might have something to add that fleshes out the idea or adds additional context, but generally if I totally agree with a comment I just upvote it.

On the other hand, when you disagree with something your response will, by logical necessity, be different from the parent comment.

So if you want to prioritize “adding something novel” there’s a logical bias towards comments that disagree since only some percentage of agreement will tick that box.

Otherwise you end up with a bunch of comments that literally or figuratively add up to “this”.

More good options is always a good thing.

Not a treasure

Atlas Nodded

Thatsthejoke.jpeg.zip

In many cases it should be fine to point them all at the same server. You’ll just need to make sure there aren’t any collisions between schema/table names.

Same. I write FOSS software in my free time and also paid.

What about spicy food? Go for the Trifecta!

Take me HOOOAAAAAAMMMMME

And often if you box yourself into an API before you start implementing, it comes out worse.

I always learn a lot about the problem space once I start coding, and use that knowledge to refine the API of my system as I work.

This reminded me of an old joke:

Two economists are walking down the street with their friend when they come across a fresh, streaming pile of dog shit. The first economist jokingly tells the other “I’ll give you a million dollars if you eat that pile of dog shit”. To his surprise, the second economist grabs it off the ground and eats it without hesitation. A deal is a deal so the first economist hands over a million dollars.

A few minutes later they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist, wanting to give his peer a taste of his own medicine, says he’ll give the first economist a million dollars if he eats it. The first economist agrees and does so, winning him a million dollars.

Their friend, rather confused, asks what the point of all this was, the first economist gave the second economist a million dollars, and then the second economist gave it right back. All they’ve accomplished is to eat two piles of shit.

The two economists look rather taken aback. “Well sure,” they say, “but we’ve grown the economy by two million dollars!”

I actually don’t think that’s the case for languages. Most languages start out from a desire to do some specific thing better than other languages rather than do everything.

I joined the Star Trek instance solely because I like startrek.website being in my handle.

The cool thing about Voyager is that it has a record of information about Earth, etched in gold, with instructions on how to read the data it contains back.

Even once it powers down, it’s still on a mission. If millions of years from now intelligent alien life ever encounters it, they will know who we were and that we existed.

It’s our handprint on the cosmic wall.

Free and Open Source Software