>> some teams are just not permitted to contribute to OSS in any way
My understanding is that by default you are not allowed to contribute to open-source even if its your own project. Exceptions are made for teams whose function is to work on those open-source project e.g. Swift/LLVM/etc...
I talked to an apple engineer at a bar years ago and he said they aren’t allowed to work on _anything_ including side projects without getting approval first. Seemed like a total wtf moment to me.
I have never had a non wtf moment talking to an apple software engineer at a bar.
I can recall one explaining to me in the mid 20 teens that the next iPhone would be literally impossible to jailbreak in any capacity with 100% confidence.
I could not understand how someone that capable(he was truly bright) could be that certain. That is pure 90s security arrogance. The only secure computer is one powered off in a vault, and even then I am not convinced.
Multiple exploits were eventually found anyway.
We never exchanged names. That’s the only way to interact with engineers like that and talk in real terms.
No, as far as I know, at Apple, this is strict - you cannot contribute to OSS, period. Not from your own equipment nor your friend's, not even during a vacation. It may cost you your job. Of course, it's not universal for every team, but on teams I know a few people - that's what I heard. Some companies just don't give a single fuck of what you want or need, or where your ideals lie.
I suspect it's not just Apple, I have "lost" so many good GitHub friends - incredible artisans and contributors, they've gotten well-payed jobs and then suddenly... not a single green dot on the wall since. That's sad. I hope they're getting paid more than enough.
Every programming job I've ever had, I've been required at certain points to make open source contributions. Granted, that was always "we have an issue with this OSS library/software we use, your task this sprint is to get that fixed".
I won't say never, but it would take an exceedingly large comp plan for me to sign paperwork forbidding me from working on hobby projects. That's pretty orwellian. I'm not allowed to work on hobby projects on company time, but that seems fair, since I also can't spend work hours doing non-programming hobbies either.
Three patterns I've noticed on the open-source projects I've worked on:
1. AI slop PRs (sometimes giant). Author responds to feedback with LLM generated responses. Show little evidence they actually gave any thought of their own towards design decisions or implementation.
2. (1) often leads me to believe they probably haven't tested it properly or thought of edge cases. As reviewer you now have to be extra careful about it (or just reject it).
3. Rise in students looking for job/internship. The expectation is that LLM generated code which is untested will give them positive points as they have dug into the codebase now. (I've had cases where they said they haven't tested the code, but it should "just work").
4. People are now even more lazy to cleanup code.
Unfortunately, all of these issues come from humans. LLMs are fantastic tools and as almost everyone would agree they are incredibly useful when used appropriately.
> Unfortunately, all of these issues come from humans.
They are. They’ve always been there.
The problem is that LLMs are a MASSIVE force multiplier. That’s why they’re a problem all over the place.
We had something of a mechanism to gate the amount of trash on the internet: human availability. That no longer applies. SPAM, in the non-commercial sense of just noise that drowns out everything else, can now be generated thousands of times faster than real content ever could be. By a single individual.
It’s the same problem with open source. There was a limit to the number of people who knew how to program enough to make a PR, even if it was a terrible one. It took time to learn.
AI automated that. Now everyone can make massive piles of complicated plausible looking PRs as fast as they want.
To whatever degree AI has helped maintainers, it is not nearly as an effective a tool at helping them as it is helping others generate things to waste their time. Intentionally or otherwise.
You can’t just argue that AI can be a benefit therefore everything is fine. The externalities of it, in the digital world, are destroying things. And even if we develop mechanisms to handle the incredible volume will we have much of value left by the time we get there?
This is the reason I get so angry at every pro AI post I see. They never seem to discuss the possible downsides of what they’re doing. How it affects the whole instead of just the individual.
There are a lot of people dealing with those consequences today. This video/article is an example of it.
I've got a few open source projects out there, and I've almost never received any PRs for them until AI, simply because they were things I did for myself and never really promoted to anyone else. But now I'm getting obviously-AI PRs on a regular basis. Somehow people are using AI to find my unpromoted stuff and submit PRs to it.
My canned response now is to respond, "Can you link me to the documentation you're using for this?" It works like a charm, the clanker doesn't ever respond.
> Unfortunately, all of these issues come from humans.
I've been thinking about this recently. As annoying as all the bots on Twitter and Reddit are, it's not bots spinning up bots (yet!), it's other humans doing this to us.
If only I were lucky enough to get LLM generated responses, usually a question like "Did you consider if X would also solve this problem?" results in a flurry of force pushed commits that overwrite history to do X but also 7 other unrelated things that work around minor snags the LLM hit doing X.
I've not had any issues with 4k display. Mac does handle monitors with different DPIs well, but not really a issue for me. Most hardware I use also just works great. Gaming is great now as well.
The only reason I can't completely switch to Linux is because there are no great options for anything non-programming related stuff I love to do ... such as photography, music (guitar amplifier sims).
Technology also moves fast, highly competitive and expensive. I'm definitely sad about this, but I can't blame founders for this. I've never founded any company myself, but I can imagine after decade of working on same product as a relatively small shop, it can be tiring, exhausting and probably new priorities (personal life, health etc ...).
It may or may not work out. Once you are not actively involved, its not per your vision anymore anyway. And at the end of the day, if you don't think e.g. in this case its very hard compete with Adobe and I really don't want to risk my payday, you'll sell it and move on to do whatever next you want to do.
If we want something to last, I think open-source is the solution.
>> A tow truck will be dispatched in conjunction with the text message notification and could be there in as few as five minutes.
If only they operate in good faith, and that is something I'd highly doubt given its SFMTA. As in they could call tow truck ahead of time, so that its almost unlikely the person will be able to get to their car in time.
Why should roads, walkways, and construction sites be blocked just to let someone have more time to avoid a ticket? I imagine the text goes out from SF's servers simultaneously with the tow truck summons. It's a fair shot for both.
I totally agree with you on that, but then why have this program at first place then?
I'm just saying that given its SFMTA -- if the tow truck will take say 30 min, they will probably try to wait and issue the ticket later right before tow truck can arrive so that they can get the fines. SFMTA relies heavily on fining people for their revenue and hence incentivized to not act on good faith here. Obviously, it an accusation based on anecdotes and personal experience and by no means an evidence, and I may very well be wrong, but overall I've very very little faith in SFMTA.
>> I imagine the text goes out from SF's servers simultaneously with the tow truck. These systems are often old. I wouldn't assume anything here.
Fines are big source of revenue for MTA. Citation would be $110 something, and if it gets towed its additional $700 for first X hours and then more later.
I didn’t include China. I also don’t think there’s any reason to close the borders to Indians. Rather, simply close off access to their Frankenstein cottage industry of scammers.
I agree that H1B abuse should be fixed. Its also bad for other H1Bs which have the skill and didn't abuse the system (which many of them are).
Maybe this 100k thing will fix it and maybe this wont. My main complain with this administration is always the chaos and impulsiveness which doesn't bring much confidence that they are actually capable of actually fixing the problem, as it always doesn't seem well thought through or executed. More like headlines to get some cheering from MAGA crowd.
> My main complain with this administration is always the chaos and impulsiveness which doesn't bring much confidence that they are actually capable of actually fixing the problem, as it always doesn't seem well thought through or executed. More like headlines to get some cheering from MAGA crowd.
I think it could also be that they don't want to fix any problems, but they do want the chaos and media attention that provides catharsis to the voting base.
>> IMO the problem is that H1B employees are stuck at the employer for the duration of their green card process, and so end up both paid lower and unable to escape abuse.
This is not true. Typically you want to stay until i140 which for me took 1 year or so back in 2020. If I want to switch there are multiple other reasons I'd end up delaying the switch anyway (wait for vest, bonus etc ...)
GNOME does look quite nice and I use it on my desktop everyday. Unfortunately, once I go beyond programming/general productivity (e.g. photography, music recording) there is nothing that comes to MacOS+MacBook combo. Windows usually have ports of these apps, so I'm hoping maybe one day Linux can run those (we are already there with games).
My understanding is that by default you are not allowed to contribute to open-source even if its your own project. Exceptions are made for teams whose function is to work on those open-source project e.g. Swift/LLVM/etc...
reply