Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | kurtis_reed's commentslogin

My god this title cliche is annoying

"Python doesn't have inbuilt types"

False.


If the maintainer merely doesn't fix the bug, then yes. If they close the bug report so it gets lost and other contributors are discouraged from working on it, then no.

Closed reports are not lost, they are still searchable/linkable, they are just not in the list of work to do.

This is entirely up to the maintainer, who puts in the work and gives up their time/money to do so. If you want to be in charge on a given repo, put in the work and become a real contributor, if not accept the rules the maintainers choose.


You know what I mean. If the issue is closed, it looks like it's been solved. A new issue may be created that duplicates it, etc.

Obviously it's up to the maintainer. I'm saying what the maintainer should do, not what they can do.


Dupe reports are a signal all by themselves, that's really not harmful, nor does something being closed implied solved.

You shouldn't presume to know what is best for an open source maintainer of any given project - projects vary, reports vary in quality, and the job of maintenance is not an easy one.


For feature requests, sure, but not for bug reports

Who are they?


As far as I can tell, the following names all refer to the same person:

- lovelydinosaur,

- Mia Kimberly Christie

- Kim (Christie)

- Tom Christie


Python doesn't have a big company behind it


Taxing and spending is so much fun even the Republicans can't resist the temptation


They are only spending the money on domestic policing and pocketing the rest, most recently in a Qatari account...


They're more Tax Cut and Spend which is infinitely worse.


vi was mentioned because this software has "VI keybindings". no one asked what you prefer.


Please do share!


https://github.com/JoeBerg8/tollbooth

this was part of a little saas tool i was building (since retired it) so spent some time today having an LLM help me pull it into a headless service. far from perfect but sharing anyway. details in readme!


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.


I don't think most people are going to pay $10 to get an email through without checking.

Might be worth strongly suggesting a check, at permission time.

But I am sure you are right.

Maybe receivers don't get the money. They just get to burn whoever is sending them email they don't want? A thought anyway.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: