throwaway150

Page is gone.

Archived copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20260105115129/https://devblogs....

It is very worrying that people with no ethics work for these trillion dollar companies who are supposed to be shaping the technology of tomorrow.

Exactly. I don't understand why so many people think the maintainer has some obligation to accept the funds even when they aren't comfortable doing so. The terms of engagement changed. The decision changed. If they want to forgo the money, they have every right to forego the money.

I'm not debating it... we're not debating it. You're having it explained to you.

You have not explained anything.

That would be the very definition of a bubble.

Just as is your bubble.

if you are going to do something for a living, make sure it is NOT scalable.

Great advice but difficult to action though.

I mean 10 years back I'd have thought programming is that thing which is not scalable. I had every reason to believe that. It required skill, experience, ability to stay current, grit for debugging hard stuff. Much of it can be automated now.

What can I pick now for a living that is not scalable today that some future technology would automate it just as easily.

It's not really debatable.

Very weird for you to start a reply like this when we are literally debating it.

You say "all of us"

Yes, I mean those of who don't use git-flow. That's what I meant by "all of us".

ignore the primary branching model the vast, vast majority of people use on Git.

Do you live in a git-flow bubble or what? I've been using VCS since the dark ages of CVS. Moved to SVN. Mercurial. Git. Never worked in a team using git-flow. Never used git-flow myself. Never met anyone IRL who uses git-flow. I only read about these things on HN and blogs.

What kind of stats do you have to claim that this is the primary branching model. If I go by my experience, it's a minority branching model that only people living within the bubble care about.

it's just a historical fact that's not really debatable.

What is a historical fact? That people use git-flow. Nobody is contesting that. What I am contesting is that the success of Git is not connected to git-flow like the grand-grand-parent comment said.

So is there anything that would actually satisfy crowd here?

Offer $25K and it is "How dare a trillion dollar company pay so little?"

Offer $250K and it is "Hmm. Exception! Must be marketing!"

What precisely is an acceptable number?

Why do none of you understand that this is for Anna's archives official torrents only?

Because you are on the site where people who have no understanding of the domain or the problem still feel it necessary to share their opinion on things they don't understand.

Yup, there would have been much less Git buy-in if it weren't for git flow

I don't buy this. I've never used git-flow in life. No team I've worked for has ever used git-flow. Yet all of us have been using Git for ages. Git has been hugely successfully independently and different teams follow different Git workflows. Its success has got very little to do with git-flow.

If a PR claims to solve a problem that I don't need, then I can skip its review because I'll never merge it.

I don't think every PR needs reviewing. Some PRs we can ignore just by taking a quick look at what the PR claims to do. This only requires a quick glance, not a PR review.

Every PR needs to be reviewed.

Why would you review a PR that you are never going to merge?

This I understand very well. It wasn't my question though. No, I wasn't asking anybody to organize a structure like Wikipedia. I was challenging the parent's comment where they said:

> This would be overwhelmed with AI slop within days.

So I asked:

What makes 10 people curating the list more susceptible to slop?

I think a 10 person project would be less susceptible to slop than a 1 person project because more people can catch more slop or so I think. So I really wanted to understand why the grandparent thinks a 10 person project would be more susceptible to slop.

The sole person running this site doesn't find the same things interesting than you do.

That misses the point. I know the site is run by a single maintainer and they are free to accept or decline whatever they choose. I have no qualms about it.

The sense of entitlement displayed is really breathtaking.

Calling something "entitlement" is an easy way to shut down discussion without engaging with the argument. Labeling a concern instead of addressing it feels like a weak response. Good thing is that the maintainer did address my concern in a separate reply instead of just shrugging it off as "entitlement" and for that I'm thankful to him.

I respect the maintainer's authority over their own site. The only thing I am asking for is a bit of courtesy in return for the effort spent curating and submitting material. I do not expect submissions to be accepted, only that rejected ones receive a brief acknowledgement. If expecting that minimal level of courtesy counts as entitlement, then so be it. We all operate within a shared community, and I am only asking for the kind of consideration I try to extend to others myself.

If you missed it, I've also apologized to the maintainer for being a pain in these threads. My comments come off as overly negative and I'm aware of that. For that I apologize. But I also want to say that my frustration comes from putting effort into collecting good blogs (retrocomputing and gaming kind), submitting them, and then seeing no response or action. The maintainer has since explained that there's a large backlog which makes the situation understandable.

So in the end, all I can do is apologize. But suggesting that I'm somehow challenging the maintainer's right to make decisions about their own project is both inaccurate and disingenuous.

Appreciate the reply. My submissions fell within the scope though. I think I took the rejections too personally. Sorry for that. I appreciate the time and effort you put into maintaining the site. I will give it a rest.

Sorry for being a pain in this thread. Wishing you all the best with the project going forward.

I tested with the 3 major browsers and all 3 block it as "Suspected Phishing". So looks like the system is working as designed.

Lookalike websites serving malware have always existed. So this isn't exactly news. But the browsers are blocking them like they should.

This would be overwhelmed with AI slop within days.

Why so? What's the logic? With ooh.directory, one person is curating it. With a community project, 10 people may curate it. What makes 10 people curating the list more susceptible to slop?

So what? This website is just some man's collection of blogs, not a government registry funded by tax money. It does not seem to even take public donations. Why shouldn't its maintainer be allowed to exercise personal judgement in his curation efforts?

Unnecessarily aggressive response from you given that you are addressing positions I never actually took. Of course the maintainer is entitled to exercise personal judgement about what gets included. When did I say anything othrwise?

What I am saying is that, as a user, it is frustrating to spend time putting together submissions and then hear absolutely nothing back. I am not demanding special treatment, just a basic acknowledgement or a brief explanation when something is rejected. Expecting that level of courtesy when you interact with a project does not strike me as unreasonable. If that is considered entitlement, then yes, I suppose I do expect basic courtesy from people I engage with.

All I am asking is whether anyone might be interested in building something more community-ish, where decisions do not rest entirely with one individual. If someone creates that, I am happy to support it with my time and contributions. That is the only point I am making.

You do seem particularly offended or annoyed that some blogs you suggested have not yet appeared on the site.

I'm not offended. Just a little frustrated that I took the time to make some submissions of blogs I thought were missing but never heard anything back.

But you're right that it is your hobby site, so you get to decide what goes in.

To be fair, I appreciate the technical effort it takes to build and maintain a directory like this. It isn't lost on me that many people like it. Kudos to the author for creating this. I absolutely don't mean to be negative about it.

But that shouldn't stop me from sharing my experience as a user. That it feels frustrating when I spend time making a bunch of submissions and I never hear anything back. But yeah, it's their website and their rules. Yes, it's one person making the decision. Yes, it's personal. I understand all that.

I was more interested in finding something less personal and more community-ish. where the power to add or reject submissions does not lie with one individual. Wouldn't that be nice?

This looks great. Your https://minifeed.net/about page is really nice too. Well done! You should make it a top level post if you haven't already

it just feels so low effort when it's just "look what AI made"

I don't know how many more of these posts will hit HN front page. It's like this forum has been taken over by vibecoder sloppers. what is the intellectual curiosity in "Look, AI made this stuff" if there is not even an analysis of what was done. What are we supposed to learn from it or be curious about? Yet these posts keep hitting the front page everyday.

You either trust it or you don't.

don't see why it has to be this way. It doesn't take much to tell us what the review process is like and what gets added and what does not. If I know in advance that the blogs I submit are outside their scope, then I won't waste time submitting them.

I also don't see why there can't be an open directory of websites where the community makes decisions about what to add instead of leaving it to a single individual.

I've submitted entries but they never get added. I have no idea how they decide what makes it into the directory and what doesn't so I've stopped trying.

> No blogs or categories were found matching emacs.

OK then.

Exactly. This is a deeper problem with ooh.directory, that the review process is opaque. They do not explain why something is added or rejected. I do not care much about Emacs itself but I submitted several of my favourite bloggers who write about retrogames, gaming rigs, and custom keyboards. None of them were added. None at all.

I do not think we should be encouraging closed directories like this in the community. I would much rather see a transparent directory where the review process is clear.

The problem with https://ooh.directory/ is that nobody can tell what gets added and what doesn't. Submissions go through an opaque review process and a lot of good submissions don't make it.

Just try searching your favorite bloggers in ooh.directory. 9 out of 10 times they'll be missing from the directory.

I'd prefer a more transparent directory where we can can tell why something is or isn't added.

I get this point, but there's a risk to this kind of thinking: putting all the responsibility on "the human operator of record" is an easy way to deflect it from other parties: such as the people who built the AI agent system the software engineer ran

That sounds like a win to me. If the software engineer responsible for letting the AI agent run amok gets sued, all software engineers will think twice before purchasing the services of these AI companies.

if you publish something to the public, you are responsible for it to a degree.

Have you read the open source licenses? They say the exact opposite.

Yes, I read that and directly addressed that in my reply to @jodrellblank above. Repeating it here:

"However noble the foundation's mission sounds, the reality is that Matrix is a complex protocol sustained by people investing their time and energy because they care about it. It will not magically solve every user problem."

You saying they don't want to be popular is, with all due respect, completely from your ass.

Perhaps you should read my messages more carefully. Try to read to understand instead of reading to respond. Not even once I mentioned anywhere that they don't want to be popular. I said that they aren't popular coz of $REASONS. I said they cannot be popular without help. Are you helping them? I help them by sending small fixes to issues that annoy me. I am trying in my own way to make it a little better. How about you? Are you here only to complain or are you doing anything to help them become a little more popular?

This is not a commercial product, you know. It is an open source project developed and improved by volunteers like you and me. Yes, there is a foundation and there is a mission but that mission will not become magically true without help from people like you and me.

If you don't want to help that's alright. You can use proprietary software where the devs will give you the software you want in exchange for money. There's nothing wrong with that. But if you want Matrix to be more popular, people like us have to make it popular by contributing to it.

Did you even read the link I gave you? It already addresses exactly the scenario you mention. That no matter how obviously sarcastic the comment is, it can still be seen as a sincere comment. Please re-read it.

But TBH in this case I couldn't tell whether the parent comment was sincere or sarcastic. But that's not the point. Poe's law applies even when the comment is obviously sarcastic.

A standards-conformant implementation of vi is absolutely required to be present

No arguments there. This is all correct. The question is: Is Vim not standards-conformant?

If Vim isn't standards-conformant, I agree some people will expect the original vi to be present.

But if Vim is standards-conformant, do people still want vi to be present? Why?

This is a subthread of "I wonder why matrix isn't more widespread at this point".

Exactly. My point is that the question itself is misplaced. It reflects a consumer mindset, which makes sense when you are paying for a product, but feels out of place with open source projects built largely through voluntary effort.

However noble the foundation's mission sounds, the reality is that Matrix is a complex protocol sustained by people investing their time and energy because they care about it.

It will not magically solve every user problem. If something does not work for you, the constructive path is to help fix it or at least propose concrete improvements. Otherwise, choosing a proprietary solution is perfectly reasonable but expecting open source projects to behave like consumer products is out of place.