I mean obviously he knows how he's part of evil, now that he's at the end of his career or life I guess the personal benefits don't outweigh the guilt anymore.
Well the reason to auto-close is that this is not an entirely unlikely resolution. When I inherited a project with a bunch of issues and started going through the backlog, around 50% of tickets were duplicates, already solved, unreproducible, etc etc
When you've only got limited time, having less of those issues to analyze and then close anyway is a very valid reason. It leaves more time for fixing real issues. Of course it comes at the cost of ignoring perfectly valid issues as well, that's why this is obviously never an optimal policy to implement, and should only be done in desperate situations.
That's why the "easy way to reopen" is so important. Your concern is theoretically valid, but if tickets are usually ignored for years, then it really is a desperate situation for the project whichever way you handle it. You can decide between an endlessly growing list of issues that likely aren't valid anymore, or pissing some users off.
I don't really see why it would be harder to find an existing or similar bug. You should be looking (or rather you should be automatically notified) before/during creating a new ticket for existing tickets describing the problem. If a closed ticket describes the exact problem, you should be finding that too, and then should just be able to use the easy way of reopening if necessary. You should also be able to find the workaround in there if someone posted it.
It's definitely not a beautiful solution, but if you implement something like this, the project is already in a desperate state, there's not too much good choices there anymore.
My brain is so used to seeing political content that I read "why do liberals define their own true and false" and was already like "what kind of shit take am I going to have fun reading today"
I don't think so. It should have an easy way of reopening - if it has, and you're flooded with tickets on an open source project that you can't possibly handle all, then it's a good way to prioritize. Of course it doesn't have an easy way to reopen here, which sucks, it's some kind of locking instead of just closing it with a possibility to reopen.
Old tickets have a non-zero chance of the reporter being the only one to run into it because of a weird setup/usecase (and then abandoning the project), it being fixed by other work, or probably a bunch of other reasons it could be obsolete.
If no one cares enough to reopen it once every 6 months, then it's probably fine to ignore it indefinitely.
I actually don't find it confusing at all, as I'm also pro-Steam. They do a lot of very cool things and actually much better than everyone else. But they're still part of a systemic problem that is worth criticizing/raising awareness for/solving.
It's an example of team sports/tribalism. People either see a thing as universally good or universally bad. Steam is the Good Guy, so our psyche is wired to not criticize them as much as possible.
I also actually have a very high opinion of them, for all the same reasons. I even said that in my original comment that I'm not actually very much against Steam doing what it's doing, since they're still doing better stuff than anybody else.
I'm just not a fanboy and am able to criticize things I like.
I still stand by that comment very much. If a company makes a lot more than most other companies per employee, then quite obviously the profit margin is much higher than other companies. If the profit margin is much higher than other companies, then the price could be lowered. Steam is obviously the best and basically a monopoly which is why they can do that, but this is an example of how capitalism does not lead to the best efficiency.
I'm essentially advocating against more profit. I live a relatively poor life by choice. Almost everyone I meet calls me crazy, I rather work less than earn more money. I think one of our main problems as a species for sustainability is that everyone always wants more and more and is never satisfied. This applies individually and to companies/other organizations. As long as my basic needs like food and housing are covered, I'm happy.
I think if you shared one picture, you would have saved paragraphs of text you didn't have to write and so much back and forth in the comments, as everyone doesn't understand what you're asking.
I meant you wouldn't have to work as hard as normal jobs if you are top 0.01% beautiful, not that you can't make money unless you are. If you aren't top 0.01%, you'll have to do lots of work to make money.
They can do whatever shit they want with their instance and believe whatever they want. The software they make provably doesn't have any more biases than any other software. As long as that's the case, I'm fine.
It's actually extremely hard to earn money with OnlyFans. You're not the first one to get the idea. There's massive competition and if you're not seriously willing to do a lot of marketing (which basically means going on social media and messaging thirsty dudes/people and being flirty with them), you're only going to earn peanuts if anything at all.
Unless you're really top 0.01% beautiful, but yeah as you see that's unlikely.
It's basically as much work as any other job, so yeah, might as well do any other job.
Azzu @ Azzu @lemm.ee Posts 15Comments 1,221Joined 2 yr. ago
I mean obviously he knows how he's part of evil, now that he's at the end of his career or life I guess the personal benefits don't outweigh the guilt anymore.