This may not be entirely the right metaphor but I kinda see it as the difference between fast food, a top rated restaurant, and home made cooking —with fast food being AI.
Generic, does the job, not the highest quality, bleak, fast repetitious output
Everything is perspective; If you're use to certain standards, and the readers are use to certain standards, expressing the travel to a country where such standards are known not to exist, then you might view the situation as something to overcome —survive (to carry on despite hardships).
> You can do things anonymously, but big companies / projects also don't have an obligation to use your code.
You're not wrong here, but I'm not forcing anyone to use my code bases or contributions.
Also, think about how many systems you blindly trust on a daily basis.
When you drive over a bridge, did you research the maitenance procedures and compliance was up to date?
When you got a house or apartment, did you look into the engineering sign offs and construction companies? And that maitenance has been done up to snuff? Even down to hoping the inspector knows what they're doing?
When you step into an elevator do you check the recent inspection plaque?
When you get on an airplane are you aware of its maitenance history? And to further my point by refering back to the house example, did the company even QA the plane before they shipped it?
And most importantly, did you check into whether the people actually did these things versus just saying they did them?
What kind of trust does having a persons name attached to the project actually provide? I would argue its a psuedo-facade trust basis that gives a false sense of security.
The truth of the matter is that you blindly trust millions of things on a daily basis. Including the very system you type from, which I guaruntee you has more than one anonymous maitainer attached to its underlying software.
I totally get where you're coming from, but the same problems exist in every industry, supply, politics, every facet of your life is based on many blind trust principles.
The one difference here with anonymous open source contributors is that they give you the code to read through yourself (and hope that you help ;) )
Very much unlike the proprietary software you're running beside it.
On top of what you mentioned I also dislike the TSA-like response the OSS community is taking with this happen stance.
I have anonomously contributed to many projects because I enjoy my privacy. All of my founding projects have also been done with anonymity.
Because someone wants their anonmity and privacy does not mean they're nefarious, and I find it funny the group that takes to these principals most is negging on those ideas.
I think, I don't know, that the modern day general understanding with that statement is "your partner finds this annoying."
I don't think it has anything to do with genders per se but is an old adage with any hobby.The historical implications do point to a bias in understanding of 'roles' but I'm more comfortable with the approach that instead of rephrasing old adages we become comfortable with the idea that our understanding of the specific adage has changed.
I think not changing the adage and instead focusing on the shift of understanding can also point to how much we grow as a society, and we can relish in our evolution of understanding as it pertains to historical beliefs.
Generic, does the job, not the highest quality, bleak, fast repetitious output