He forgot some of the biggest reasons.

• A larger codebase is generally just harder to work on. A more established product with more users tends to be larger.
• More popular projects with many users tend to have developers that don't welcome new contributions. The investment required for a new developer to make an initial contribution is huge. Things like setting up the development environment and the stack of technologies and understanding the basic architecture are significant barriers to entry. Existing developers tend to not care about reducing that burden. After all, everyone who's *actually *contributing to the project is already over that barrier, right?

Developers, open source or otherwise, should generally be excited about people "taking their jobs". Because you're going to have churn of developers over time, and if you're not bringing in fresh blood, then your project is eventually going to die. Do you really want to maintain every project you work on for the rest of your life? Encourage new blood. Do what you can to accept new ideas and directions unless you have very good and explicit reasons not to. If someone has a sightly different vision and is willing to hop that initial barrier and is willing to put in more work than you, don't undervalue that. Be willing to compromise a little to bring in a new developer. Sometimes you have to say no, but consider that you're saying no to a person who wants to volunteer their time to do work for you.

On the other hand, there are tons of people who say they're eager to work on your project. You invest a little time into them, they provide nothing, and then vanish. It's easy to get jaded when you keep running into people who are more words than action. Be very careful what you promise you'll do, and if someone invests their time to help you, try to actually do what you said you would.

Anti-corruption should be bipartisan.

After they make the change, someone with an old Hue bulb should go to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Making this decision retroactive is clearly false advertising and anti-consumer. I don't really give a shit what their terms of use were.

They can do what they want with their future bulbs. The old ones need to be grandfathered in.

They were gonna raise the rent anyway.

She's not wrong. It's insane that we're still burning coal and oil.

Which is kind of weird because most C# devs aren't doing games.

Uh, seems like an odd reason to quit your job.

I'd have to quit my job twice a week if I left every time my boss said something dumb.

One of my last comments on Reddit was about this.

The biggest difference I've noticed is that people have stopped reading sentences. They'll read all the words and then upvote based on the feeling those individual words give them. They won't consider the meaning of all those words put together.

And yeah, "upvote does not mean agree" is something Reddit has always struggled with, but it has definitely had exponential growth lately.

It has made me start writing more clearly. There are comments I've written that have been wildly misinterpreted from my actual meaning. Part of that is that I tend towards sarcasm, and it doesn't translate well over the internet no matter how absurd I get with it. But I've also started aiming to use more simple sentence structure.

Keep in mind that in these situations it's not always their fault. Sometimes two other people have pulled in straight and they're the third. Then the other two leave, and they just look like an ass.

Or maybe they're just an ass. Can really go either way.

Everyone loved the OnlyFans account. Forcing someone to manage it who said they weren't comfortable is kind of insane.

Rust > php

I switched this week.