4 ms·

Sorry, but this seems like a privileged solution. Let's say you're a one-of-a-kind kid that already is making useful contributions, but $1 is a lot of money fo

Sorry, but this seems like a privileged solution. Let's say you're a one-of-a-kind kid that already is making useful contributions, but $1 is a lot of money for you, then suddenly your work becomes useless? It feels weird to pay for providing work anyway. Even if its LLM gunk, you're paying to work (let alone pay for your LLM).

oldpersonintx 9mo ago
[dead]
kurtis_reed 9mo ago
You get it refunded
- Nevermark 9mo ago
  The default could should be to refund. That would make not-refunding culturally crass unless it was warranted. With manual options for: 0. (Default, refund) 1. (Default refund) + Auto-send discouragement response. (But allow it.) 2. (Default refund) + Block. 3. Do not refund 4. Do not refund + Auto-send discouragement response. 5. Do not refund + Block. 6. Do not refund + Block + Report SPAM (Boom!) And typically use $1 fee, to discourage spam. And $10 fee, for important, open, but high frequency addresses, as that covers the cost of reviewing high throughput email, so useful email did get identified and reviewed. (With the low quality communication subsidizing the high quality communication.) The latter would be very useful in enabling in-demand contact doors to remain completely open, without being overwhelmed. Think of a CEO or other well known person, who does want an open channel of feedback from anyone, ideally, but is going to have to have someone vet feedback for the most impactful comments, and summarize any important trend in the rest. $10 strongly disincentives low quality communication, and covers the cost of getting value out of communication (for everyone).
  - zx8080 9mo ago
    $10 will be a honeypot for scammers.
    - Nevermark 9mo ago
      I don't think most people are going to pay $10 to get an email through without checking. Might be worth strongly suggesting a check, at permission time. But I am sure you are right. Maybe receivers don't get the money. They just get to burn whoever is sending them email they don't want? A thought anyway.
sdenton4 9mo ago
Not that word, in the context of contributing to an open source project that you're likely already benefiting from. ie, if you want to contribute code, you must also contribute financially.
- johnnyanmac 9mo ago
  >contributing to an open source project that you're likely already benefiting from. Yes, but many people benefit for free. You see the backwards incentives of making the most interested (i.e. the ones who may provide the most work to your project) pay? And none of that even guarantee support. Meanwhile you donate more and you get to tell people what the build. It's all out of what.
Fnoord 9mo ago
It is a privileged solution. And a stupid one, too. Because $1 is worth a lot more for someone in India, than someone in USA. If you want to implement this more fairly, you'd be looking at something like GDP or BBP plus geolock. Streaming services perfected this mechanism already.
- strken 9mo ago
  This might be by design. Almost anyone writing software professionally at a level beyond junior is getting paid enough that $1 isn't a significant expense, whether in India or elsewhere. Some projects will be willing to throw collaboration and inclusivity out the window if it means cutting their PR spam by 90% and only reducing their pool of available professional contributors by 5%.
  - Bayko 9mo ago
    Indian here. You are correct. Expecting any employed Indian software developer to not be able to spare 1$ is stupid. Like how exactly poor do you think we are?!
    - strken 9mo ago
      I think the point was that if an aspirational minimum wage worker on a borrowed computer wants to put up a PR then it would cost them less than ten minutes of wages to afford $1USD in the US, while the same worker in India would need to put up about half a day's wages. This is very noble in theory, but in practice you're not going to get many high-quality PRs from someone who's never been paid to write software and has no financial support.
      - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
        so we continue to make the rich richer and the broke students struggle more to get valuable experience. Very easy to point in 10-20 years under the coming "engineer crisis" why 'suddenly' can't support the systems we built.
    - 9mo ago
andai 9mo ago
It is simple: we simply add a whitelist for the child prodigies.

oldpersonintx 9mo ago

[dead]

kurtis_reed 9mo ago

You get it refunded

Nevermark 9mo ago
The default could should be to refund. That would make not-refunding culturally crass unless it was warranted. With manual options for: 0. (Default, refund) 1. (Default refund) + Auto-send discouragement response. (But allow it.) 2. (Default refund) + Block. 3. Do not refund 4. Do not refund + Auto-send discouragement response. 5. Do not refund + Block. 6. Do not refund + Block + Report SPAM (Boom!) And typically use $1 fee, to discourage spam. And $10 fee, for important, open, but high frequency addresses, as that covers the cost of reviewing high throughput email, so useful email did get identified and reviewed. (With the low quality communication subsidizing the high quality communication.) The latter would be very useful in enabling in-demand contact doors to remain completely open, without being overwhelmed. Think of a CEO or other well known person, who does want an open channel of feedback from anyone, ideally, but is going to have to have someone vet feedback for the most impactful comments, and summarize any important trend in the rest. $10 strongly disincentives low quality communication, and covers the cost of getting value out of communication (for everyone).
- zx8080 9mo ago
  $10 will be a honeypot for scammers.
  - Nevermark 9mo ago
    I don't think most people are going to pay $10 to get an email through without checking. Might be worth strongly suggesting a check, at permission time. But I am sure you are right. Maybe receivers don't get the money. They just get to burn whoever is sending them email they don't want? A thought anyway.

sdenton4 9mo ago

Not that word, in the context of contributing to an open source project that you're likely already benefiting from. ie, if you want to contribute code, you must also contribute financially.

johnnyanmac 9mo ago
>contributing to an open source project that you're likely already benefiting from. Yes, but many people benefit for free. You see the backwards incentives of making the most interested (i.e. the ones who may provide the most work to your project) pay? And none of that even guarantee support. Meanwhile you donate more and you get to tell people what the build. It's all out of what.

Fnoord 9mo ago

It is a privileged solution. And a stupid one, too. Because $1 is worth a lot more for someone in India, than someone in USA. If you want to implement this more fairly, you'd be looking at something like GDP or BBP plus geolock. Streaming services perfected this mechanism already.

strken 9mo ago
This might be by design. Almost anyone writing software professionally at a level beyond junior is getting paid enough that $1 isn't a significant expense, whether in India or elsewhere. Some projects will be willing to throw collaboration and inclusivity out the window if it means cutting their PR spam by 90% and only reducing their pool of available professional contributors by 5%.
- Bayko 9mo ago
  Indian here. You are correct. Expecting any employed Indian software developer to not be able to spare 1$ is stupid. Like how exactly poor do you think we are?!
  - strken 9mo ago
    I think the point was that if an aspirational minimum wage worker on a borrowed computer wants to put up a PR then it would cost them less than ten minutes of wages to afford $1USD in the US, while the same worker in India would need to put up about half a day's wages. This is very noble in theory, but in practice you're not going to get many high-quality PRs from someone who's never been paid to write software and has no financial support.
    - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
      so we continue to make the rich richer and the broke students struggle more to get valuable experience. Very easy to point in 10-20 years under the coming "engineer crisis" why 'suddenly' can't support the systems we built.
  - 9mo ago

andai 9mo ago

It is simple: we simply add a whitelist for the child prodigies.