Writing a skill / set of rules around what makes a good commit message would encourage the LLM to record it's reasoning (however much we truly consider it to be "reasoning").

If you get them involved in the design process, they feel heard. Feeling heard is one surefire way to have a person feel involved. Feeling involved fosters a sense of ownership and pride which in turn helps keep a person engaged.

I could have been more explicit on that nuance, I suppose.

I do believe, however, that it would have a meaningful impact on the "drive-by" PRs that keep being used as examples; the thoughtless, throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall PRs that do not have malignant intent behind them.

Many large OSS projects would have the resources to eat that cost with Donors, Sponsors, and OSS hand-outs. That's why I clarified in my original post because I know this is not a general solution.

- Hooks (although there's no clean way to enforce they be "installed" on a clone), GHA Workflows (or their equivalents on other forges).

This might be my bias showing, but these are items I would consider table-stakes for a project of a certain size / level of popularity.

It feels like a lot of the "AI is shit at contributing" problems could be addressed in part by better automated checks and balances.

AI _can_ work with 3D models already, but it's really bad at it. CAD requires an extra level of control and I think this is where I could see AI companies wanting to get a foot in the door.

e.g "Let's build an adapter between 2in BSP Male and 3/4in NPT Female threads with a third Hose Barb outlet with the following properties..."

I believe wet clutches are semi-designed with this use-case in mind

The FAQs in Github also imply that a hosted deployment for single users is on their roadmap, but not prioritized. - https://github.com/thunderbird/thunderbolt/blob/main/docs/fa...

Perhaps there's a matter of competing priorities?

Programmers are usually quite cynical overall, but in this case I see it as a "My CEO is telling me _out loud_ that they want to replace me, so why would I help them speed up that process?"

Investors likely want what they're invested in to appreciate, so I imagine they're likely over-leveraged and are doing what they can to get their bag.

I can't imagine a legitimate market for (in my opinion gimmicky) colour e-readers, and I believe this would be a horrific experience as a daily-use monitor.

Is this intended for some form of advertising or marketing?

Two sides of the same coin. Demand will always exist in a waxing / waning fashion. You've identified an area that will temporarily increase demand in the industrializing countries.

My hope is that the reduction in demand in more established countries will be able to offset that increase in demand somewhat. Probably not enough to net-zero it, but hopefully it has some meaningful effect.

There will always be some baseline demand for petroleum products, but reducing the demand to be as close to baseline as possible is a good thing.

It was _that_ part which sparked outrage. The overly-simplistic definition of "Single Use" items included items which are _actually_ recyclable like paper (or compostable if covered in food-stuff).

They undid the ban "for re-evaluation"

My area also mandates municipal composting so the discussion of "But is it _really_ compostable" is moot.