8 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. For decades, code contributions have been how open source projects learned who to trust. People would show up, do the work, take responsibility for their changes, and stick around. Over time, trust emerged from the work itself. AI tools have changed the economics of this very quickly. We use them ourselves every day, but a pull request no longer tells us as much as it used to about the person submitting it. A substantial patch used to imply substantial effort, and that effort was a reasonable proxy for good faith. That assumption no longer holds. For a browser, this matters. A browser runs untrusted input from the entire internet on the user’s machine, and one well-disguised vulnerability is all an attacker needs. We have already seen patient, well-resourced campaigns in open source to earn maintainer trust and abuse it. What has changed is how much faster and cheaper it has become to produce work that looks like a serious contribution.
  2. Sep 2025
  3. Aug 2024
    1. all the flowers that cut through the earth, all, all the flowers are lost; everything is lost, everything is crossed with black, black upon black and worse than black, this colourless light.

      This creates a very dark and sad image inside of my head.

  4. Aug 2021
    1. Pham, Q. T., Le, X. T. T., Phan, T. C., Nguyen, Q. N., Ta, N. K. T., Nguyen, A. N., Nguyen, T. T., Nguyen, Q. T., Le, H. T., Luong, A. M., Koh, D., Hoang, M. T., Pham, H. Q., Vu, L. G., Nguyen, T. H., Tran, B. X., Latkin, C. A., Ho, C. S. H., & Ho, R. C. M. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19 on the Life and Work of Healthcare Workers During the Nationwide Partial Lockdown in Vietnam. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 563193. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.563193

  5. Jul 2020
  6. Aug 2018
    1. A promising approach that addresses some worker output issues examines the way that workers do their work rather than the output itself, using machine learning and/or visualization to predict the quality of a worker’s output from their behavior [119,120]

      This process improvement idea has some interesting design implications for improving temporal qualities of SBTF data: • How is the volunteer thinking about time? • Where does temporality enter into the data collection workflow? • What metadata do they rely on? • What is their temporal sensemaking approach?

    2. Of the research foci, quality control has arguably received the most attention so far. Approaches for quality control largely fall into two camps: up-front task design and post-hoc result analysis. Task design aimsto design tasks that are resistant to low-quality work.

      Quality control processes is definitely a tension for SBTF.

      A better integrated task design and verification process at the end of activations could be more effectively address information quality concerns.

    3. Unlike traditional organizations in which workers possess job security and managers can closely supervise and appropriately reward or sanction workers, or distributed computing systems in which processors are usually highly reliable, crowd work poses uniquechallenges for both workers and requestersranging fromjob satisfactiontodirection-setting, coordination, and quality control.

      In the literature, quality tends to be used as an attribute of the output (content, HIT, etc.) but could/should it also refer to the crowd worker experience, as Kittur notes: "job satisfaction, direction-setting, coordination, and quality control"?

      How are these factors incorporated into the process and incentive system?