Some projects, like Linux (the kernel) have always been developed that way. Linus has described the trust model in the kernel to be very much "web of trust". You don't just submit patches directly to Linus, you submit them to module maintainers who are trusted by subsystem maintainers and who are all ultimately, indirectly trusted by the branch maintainer (Linus).
It used to be predominantly women who did it. It was part of being a housewife. Joy of Cooking even has an entire chapter dedicated to hosting a dinner party. But now women work for billionaires too. Nobody has time to work for themselves.
It's more that they need to unlearn what society has been telling them for the past couple of decades. Young boys in the past weren't brought up being essentially told they are monsters and that expressing preferences is "objectifying women" etc.
The problem with LLMs is it doesn't bring structured learning or a curriculum. So it's great for filling in the gaps, but books and formal education are better at getting you a solid foundation in a field.
I think you need a bit of both. Hobby projects are a great way to solidify specific learnings. You want to learn CSS? Build a website! Simple, right? But we tend to build our hobbies differently, we treat them specially, and it's easy to get bored when they're no longer about the thing you wanted to learn about.
Building stuff for other people forces you to bend the project in ways you might not want to. It forces you to focus on their problems rather than your own. It also forces you to actually deliver. I've got countless projects that went nowhere once I was satisfied I'd learnt the initial, easy, 80% of the area. It's that remaining 20% that makes you an expert, though.
I noticed the "bicycle tree" in Scotland which has encapsulated a bicycle amongst other things as it has grown. It reminded me of a very old graveyard I would play in as a kid. The oldest side was all old trees and one day I noticed one of the trees had a couple of gravestones up in its boughs. I always wondered if these were really lifted up there by the tree and if so whether that's unusual.
Trees don't grow in a manner which can typically lift things. It's really unusual - and requires either distinct circumstances, or highly technical measurements between gauge pins.
They can be. A PR can be made and code review conducted by submitting a patch to a mailing list. That's how the kernel and, I think, git itself is developed.
CI/CD is really a methodology. It just means integrating/deploying stuff as soon as its ready. So you just need maintainers to be able to run the test suite and deploy, which seems like a really basic thing.
Oh, what a weak argument: "you've just fallen for the propaganda".
You might notice comments simply arguing for less energy usage are buried at the bottom too. Have you considered whether you may have fallen for the "green" propaganda? It's so predictable after all.
Two wrongs don't make a right. We look back and curse our ancestors for their unbridled use of fossil fuels. Who is to say future generations won't look back and curse us for destroying all wilderness?
Do you have ANY datapoints or arguments to underpin that renewables "destroy all wilderness". Or even more that they are worse than fossil fuels? This claim - especially in your harsh tone - could need at least some reason.
> We look back and curse our ancestors for their unbridled use of fossil fuels. Who is to say future generations won't look back and curse us for destroying all wilderness?
I curse my ancestors for destroying all wilderness to get at fossil fuels.
Ok, I'll bite. What if solar panels turn into breeding grounds with perfect environmental temperatures to create viruses that kill us all? Who is to say the sun won't blow up tomorrow? Why not enumerate all the things that might happen to distract? There is a nice quote going around re a weather scientists who gets asked annually what's it going to be like this year? He's tired, and notes "this year, and every year for the rest of your life is going to be the hottest ever." That's in large part to oil, full stop.
Not so scenic any more... I get it, electricity good, but man are we destroying places just to get this stuff. In the UK I reckon within my lifetime it won't be possible to go to the sea any more. I mean, the sea how it used to be, without wind turbines in it. Fossil fuels gave us too much. If only we could figure out how to want less.
My local beaches on the Yorkshire coast have some of the biggest wind farms in the world.
We’re never going to reduce energy consumption. It’s a balance between gas and wind here, just pick how many wind turbines you want, and burn gas to fill in the gaps.
Your ruined horizon is my safer future for my kids. I like seeing them there. I wish there were more.
I think there is reason to think that we will reduce energy consumption.
US energy consumption per capita peaked in 1975 and has trended down even as population has increased. There's going to be a peak in global population, likely before 2100 (and it keeps getting revised sooner, not later).
So it stands to reason that as we become more energy efficient (already happening) and we start to have fewer people on earth (likely to happen in your/ your children's lifetime) that overall consumption will in fact go down.
I mean, I think on an infinite timescale we probably will. A middle-class lifestyle today requires less energy than 20 years ago, simply because things have gotten more efficient (if you buy a fridge or a washing machine or a central heating system or a lightbulb today, it's using significantly less energy to do the same thing). But not _soon_. And part of the shift is very much from non-electric to electric power usage (gas heating -> heat pumps, petrol cars -> electric cars, diesel trains -> electric trains, etc etc). Energy use per capita will peak (may already have peaked) _long_ before electricity use per capita.
Every generation thinks they're building a safer future for their kids, including the boomers. If you want to talk about safety then you need to take sustainability seriously.
In the US, "Boomers" made the environmental movement mainstream, created the EPA, started cleanup of superfund sites, and passed the clean water and clean air acts. There are waterways where I live that are swimmable for the first time in generations because of the Boomers. It's not an either/or proposition.
Boomers didn't create the EPA, that was the Greatest and Silent generations. Boomers were no more than 25 in 1970 and hardly in power. Some of them may have been in the activists pushing for change but they didn't actually pass the legislation.
I would rather they not have to be built in the first place. Yet, this is unfortunately the price we must pay today for not reducing our carbon emissions yesterday.
Had we taken a serious effort to do something in, say the mid nineties when the scientific community reached a large consensus regarding the major contributors of climate change it had been less urgent to do something now thirty years later and we would have had a much longer time for the academies and industry to research and improve performance of non-fossil energy production and do the same for energy using applications.
It's not the renewables which are to blame, because if we continue to burn fossil fuels the way we do then these places will either soon be destroyed, or nobody can appreciate them due to civilisational collapse.
reply