Are you a paying customer?
Testers and bug reporters are not paying customers. They are volunteer CONTRIBUTORS.
If so, I understand completely.
Obviously not.
The dev is a bigger volunteer than you.
Nonsense. Contributors are equals. Exceptionally, devs who demand that testers also fix the software are notably smaller (managers, effectively).
That’s fair enough, but it’s a bit of both (satire and reality). It’s actually a true account (details withheld because I have a bit of respect for the developer in the recent case). This is something that really happens. Not often, but occasionally there are devs & others who expect bug reporters to do a fix. There’s a poor attitude that bug reporters are in some way a beneficiary/consumer and the false idea that the devs are working for the bug reporter. There’s also an assumption that the bug reporter is in some way in need of a fix. When in fact the bug reporter is a volunteer contributor, performing work for the project just like the dev. It’s just as wrong for a dev to demand work a bug reporter work on the code as it is for a bug reporter to demand work from a dev. Everyone gives what they can or wants to. A bug report is not an individual support request. It’s a community bug -- one that may or may not even affect the bug reporter.
You just identified the fallacy yourself.
You’re going to have to name this fallacy you keep talking about because so far you’re not making sense.
Sometimes a paywalled source is the first to report on something. Calling that link a bad link is nonsense.
One man’s bad link is another man’s good link. It’s nonsense to prescribe for everyone one definition of “bad”. What’s bad weather? Rain? I love rain. Stop trying to speak for everyone and impose your idea of “bad” on people.
Many people don’t know all the websites to redirect things through without that, so calling their contribution “bad” just because they posted that link isn’t the greatest.
So because someone might not know their link is bad, it ceases to be bad? Nonsense.
It’s not even like it’s that big an issue, because usually someone else comes along that provides an alt link in the replies,
(emphasis mine) Usually that does not happen.
so saying that this is a social failure is also ridiculous, because both were provided between two people.
This based on the false premise that usually bad links are supplemented by an alternate from someone else.
Also, the notion that you or anyone else is socially filtering non-misinformation news sources from the rest of us, because you don’t see the value in it, or cannot figure out how to bypass the paywall yourself, isn’t all that great either.
(emphasis mine) Every user can define an enshitified site how they want. If you like paywalls, why not have your user-side config give you a personalized favorable presentation of such links?
A link is not a bad link for going to the source. You’ve misunderstood the post and also failed to identify a logical fallacy (even had your understanding been correct).
Whether the link goes to the source or not is irrelevant. I’m calling it a bad link if it goes to a place that’s either enshitified and/or where the content is unreachable (source or not). This is more elaborate than what you’re used to. There’s more than a dozen variables that can make a link bad. Sometimes the mirror is worse than the source (e.g. archive*ph, which is a Cloudflared mirror site).
One man’s bug is another man’s feature. The hair-splitting you attempt here really serves no useful purpose. I’m calling it a bug because input data is overly trusted and inadequately processed. It could be framed as a bug or an enhancement and either way shouldn’t impact the treatment (beyond triage/priority).
if a tester posted something like this as a bug instead of a change request, it would get thrown right into the trash bin
Yikes. Your suggestion that it should impact whether it’s treated at all is absurd. Bug reports and enhancements are generally filed in the same place regardless. If you’re tossing out bugs/enhancements because you think they are mis-marked, instead of fixing the marking, I wouldn’t want you working on any project that affects me or that I work on. That’s terrible. Shame on you.
Side note, do the hash tags do anything on lemmy, or are they just posted here for emphasis?
They have search index relevance in the fediverse. People outside of Lemmy will find the Lemmy post if they search those hashtags (which are ignored by Lemmy itself).
Of course.. The reaction shows how seriously wound tight people are. Obviously not much sense of humor in this community.
There are a couple rare cases where devs have tried to coerce me into a fix. Sometimes they outright say they expect the bug reporter to fix it, strangely enough. It never happened in a language that I knew, and weird that bug reporters would be expected to know how to program at all. But it’s far from the norm.
It would need some analysis by legal experts. But consider that archive.org gets away with it. Although archive.org has an opt-out mechanism. So perhaps each Lemmy instance should have an opt-out mechanism, which should push a CAPTCHA in perhaps one of few good uses for CAPTCHAs. Then if Quora wants to opt-out, they have to visit every Lemmy instance, complete the opt-out form, and solve the CAPTCHA. Muahaha!
Note as well how 12ft.io works: it serves you Google’s cache of a site (which is actually what the search index uses). How did Google get a right to keep those caches?
There’s also the #fairUse doctrine. You can quote a work if your commenting on it. Which is what we do in the threadiverse. Though not always -- so perhaps the caching should be restricted to threads that have comments.
And? Of course testers do not pay money. Why would they? Devs do not pay for the tester’s work either. Both developers and testers are volunteers who do not pay the other for their work. On free software projects testers and devs pay with their own labor.
It is not “much larger” for a dev to task the tester to implement the fix. The dev is no more than a manager in this case.