_meqs

Reading this, I feel less offended (really, I don't understand the use of that word in politics) and more scared and threatened. I'm a :sparkles: gender minority :sparkles: so politics can get really directly influential really quickly, and the picture of a gun-owning person who thinks taxes are theft is less than encouraging: that type of ideology usually does not account for people like me's existence. It's possible that it's just a hobby (heavy benefit of the doubt here), but it reads like a political statement against my ability to live freely.

Anyway, you asked: that's why I'd be scared to put much into the OP's hands.

Honestly I think this opens up a really interesting discussion in open source. I know this is satire, but bear with me.

If I see a project, and I get curious about its test results, I can just look at the logs of the tests running and the ways in which they're run. I can see exactly what's going on, and if something weird's going on, I can fork the project, enable tests, and start a discussion with the maintainers. Maybe it's important enough that the tests are enabled and the code is fixed.

What's really interesting to me about this is that there's no competition in sight. There are no market pressures that make someone look at the code or fix it, it's just the desire for good code. Whereas with market pressures, I'm incentivized to lock down code and hide test results! You can say that's an edge case or uncommon, but the fact of the matter is that it happened. Anyway, this makes me curious about two things:

1. In software specifically, does the reduction of competition necessarily contribute to a more collaborative and more productive development process than what we expect with traditional systems?

2. If 1 is true, how widely does this scale? What could be better if some of the control of owners was removed? For instance, if the test processes of VW were public, none of this would have happened.

I've spent so long being told that competition is the be all and end all of productivity, so I'm just curious about what's happening here, and I want to know how far it goes.

> Why don't you write your own

I feel there are plenty of reasons to not write your own anything, from prioritizing other projects, not having time, or just not having all of the required expertise. As a student I'm lucky enough to be able to drop basically everything and work on this one cool project idea so long as I get my essays in on time, but that just doesn't seem to be something universally applicable.

> instead of complaining on the Internet

Where else would you prefer they complain? I agree it may be more effective to open an issue no the repo, but does that also count as `copmlaining on the Internet'? Talking to people is how we change things. In this case, that's contributing to the usability of technology that grows ever more central in our lives.

Personally, I think a focus on accessibility is a great focus to have, and it should be obligatory if it isn't voluntarily universal. There is no reason for our society to provide more opportunities to humans with perfect vision than to humans with impaired vision.