Comment by ramon156
3 months ago
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).
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.
This might be by design. Almost anyone writing software professionally at a level beyond junior is getting paid enough that $1 isn't a significant expense, whether in India or elsewhere. Some projects will be willing to throw collaboration and inclusivity out the window if it means cutting their PR spam by 90% and only reducing their pool of available professional contributors by 5%.
Indian here. You are correct. Expecting any employed Indian software developer to not be able to spare 1$ is stupid. Like how exactly poor do you think we are?!
9 replies →
I've contributed almost full time to free software as a student. When I became a professional software developer, suddenly I lost the time to do it.
Students don't have a lot of money to burn here. They're borrowing money to study. You'll miss out on them. However, you're unlikely to notice. I mean, there is no control group in such experiment.
1 reply →
[dead]
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.
>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.
You get it refunded
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).
$10 will be a honeypot for scammers.
1 reply →
It is simple: we simply add a whitelist for the child prodigies.
[dead]