It sounds like you’re defining design as UI/UX design. I think most people include (prioritize, even) things like system architecture, performance bounds, etc.

ISOCP, maybe?

Edit: close, but not quite

I saw a good mental model for this a while ago. Unfortunately I have no idea where.

Three kinds of disability:

1. Permanent (eg, blind)

2. Temporary (eg, pregnant/new parent, recoverable injury)

3. Contextual (eg, holding something with one hand, loud environment)

When people think about accessibility, they often think about 1. But the long-tails for 2 and 3 are huge, and ultimately affect everyone at some point.

I wonder if there’s a version of Maslow’s hierarchy that applies to countries/societies.

Kohlberg's theory of moral development comes to mind.

You might be reading this through your own filter. It's an overloaded term right now but I took the parent to be referring to actual violent radicalization which is a real online threat: https://rcmp.ca/en/corporate-information/publications-and-ma...

(Forgive the link source - I can see in hindsight how that might not be perceived as the most objective source - but there are many other sources for those who care to look.)

No idea why this comment is getting downvoted so hard. This was exactly what I thought of too, and it provides a concrete answer to the question.

There’s valid concern with these types of laws and scope creep. But there’s also precedent which shows they can work and be applied reasonably.

Further to this, the quality problem is affecting the entire industry, not just FOSS. Anyone working on a large enough team has already seen some contributors pushing slop.

And while banning AI outright is certainly an option at a private company, it also feels like throwing out the baby with the bath water. So we’re all searching for a solution together, I think.

There was a time (decades ago) when projects didn’t need to use pull requests. As the pool of contributors grew, new tools were discovered and applied and made FOSS (and private dev) a better experience overall. This feels like a similar situation.

Projects back then did not use pull requests because that is a concept created by GitHub.

Apologies, I forgot to use the more general term.

FOSS projects didn’t always have a standard process for Fagan inspections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagan_inspection

the original pull request was an email to the upstream developer to run "git pull your-repo your-branch".

the concept is at least as old as git itself, possibly even older. github just created a webinterface for it.

Scanning a few. Some are definitely written by AI but most seem genuinely human (or at least, not claude).

Anecdata: I read five and only found one was AI. Your sampling may vary.

Isn’t this a form of what he labels the “human coefficient”?

Some businesses prefer tools built by other businesses for some tasks. The author advocates pretty plainly to identify and target those opportunities if that’s your strength.

I think his point is to recognize that’s moving toward a niche rather than the norm (on the spectrum of all software to be built).

Sounds a bit like man pages. I think you’re onto something.