Why would it? Shareholders of the major stocks are generally vibes-based, and I'm sure that if Apple undertook that, they would find a way to build hype around it.
Out of curiosity, what are you developing? While regular usage stuff such as HDR is indeed lacking, and general UX leaves a lot to be desired, Linux was always best for me in any software development discipline that I took on, and macOS was a "death by a thousand cuts" instead.
The offensiveness of many comes from the original intention of the word, which was generally some sort of a condemnation of another person (or perhaps sometimes some other taboo). To repeat it is to repeat some of that original intent, at least at times... But I think now a simple "fuck" has all but lost that meaning, and I would say it's not really inherently offensive. And well placed, sparingly used, it can be a good way to extend your range of emotional expression. Well, as long as it's not at cost of everything else.
I see this behavior in many people, usually conflict averse. In a poor attempt to mediate, spread incompetence like butter on a slice of bread. Ranges from tiring to infuriating.
It would be more resilient indeed, I think. Definitely needs a way to figure out which users should have a good score, though - otherwise it's just shifting the problem somewhat. Perhaps it could be done with a reputation type of approach, where the initial reputation would be driven by a pool of "trusted" open source contributors from some major projects.
That said, I believe the core problem is that GitHub belongs to Microsoft, and so it will still go more towards operating like a social network than not - i.e. engagement matters. It will still take a good will to get rid of Social Network Disease at scale.
The stars have fallen to the classic problem of becoming a goal and stopping being a good metric. This can apply to your measure just as well: issues can also be gamed to be opened, closed and responded to quickly, especially now with LLMs.
Was it ever a good metric? A star from another account costs nothing and conveys nothing about the sincerity, knowledge, importance or cultural weight of the star giver. As a signal it's as weak as 'hitting that like button'.
If the number of stars are in the thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, that might correlate with a serious project. But that should be visible by real, costly activity such as issues, PRs, discussion and activity.
There isn't just "good metric" in vacuum - it was a good metric of exactly the popularity that you mentioned. But stars becoming an object of desire is what killed it for that purpose. Perhaps now they are a "good metric" of combined interest and investment in the project, but what they're measuring is just not useful anymore.
Yeah, I'd agree with this. I always thought of a star indicating only that a person (or account, generally) had an active interest in another project, either through being directly related or just from curiosity. Which can sort of work as a proxy for interesting, important or active, but not accurately.
I remember talking to some of the folks running UIUC's hackathon (probably ten years ago) and they'd built a sort of page-rank for Github - hand-identifying the most prominent and reputable projects/individuals and then using follows and stars to transfer that reputation. I don't know how well it worked in practice or if it was every published, but it might be more effective than pure star count.
(This was for admissions iirc - they had limited slots and a portion of them were allocated to people with a strong github rank.)
A repository with zero stars has essentially no users. A repository with single-stars has a few users, but possibly most/all are personal acquiantances of the author, or members of the project.
It is the meaning of having dozens or hundreds of stars that is undermined by the practice described at the linked post.
Sometimes people open issues without proper information. It cant be replicated and nobody else is jumping in that it affects them. You may suspect its something else, maybe with their environment, but if they don't engage what else can you do? Tell them you are closing it and specify what kind of info you need if they ever get around to providing it and it can be reopened.
"Unable to reproduce" is a fair enough explicit close reason. This is more about those "stale" bots that exist that just kinda close the issues because there hasn't been any response for X days. The annoyance with the practice usually stems from the fact that many of the victims of this comes from a lack of maintainer response.
This sort of bot punishes users for making even valid reports that aren't fixed immediately or missed by the maintainers for whatever reason including transitory ones, etc.
Constantly bumping threads/issues/whatever is generally considered rude, so this is why issue reporters generally don't do it, plus generally the reporter isn't solely focused on that particular issue
And sometimes the maintainer simply doesn't respond to a perfectly acceptable issue due to either the maintainer abandoning the project, not enough maintainers or simple neglect.
>No argument against more onerous checking is undermined or rendered less severe due to an age field already existing
From your point of view.
What I can tell you is that there are definitely people who will argue that this is, by the fact of being written into law, now the spirit of the law.
Then these people will argue that the spirit of the law is being broken, and the implementation needs to be better and tighter. Not that it needs to be repealed! Because clearly this is something that was wanted. And to many, many people, this will be sufficient argument not to complain about further measures.
reply