Offset Bad Code, With Bad Code Offsets

An anonymous reader writes "Two weeks ago, The Daily WTF's Alex Papadimoulis announced Bad Code Offsets, a join venture between many big names in the software development community (including StackOverflow's Jeff Atwood and Jon Skeet and SourceGear's Eric Sink). The premise is that you can offset bad code by purchasing Bad Code Offsets (much in the same way a carbon-footprint is offset). The profits are donated to Free Software projects which work to eliminate bad code, such as the Apache Foundation and FreeBSD. The first cheques were sent out earlier today." Hopefully, they work better than carbon offsets, actually.

Comments

Deliberately bad?

[Geoffrey.landis]

Let me get this right-- you purchase this offset so that you can deliberately write bad code?

Why??

Re:Deliberately bad?

[mea37]

I think the intent is that you buy them as penance for bad code you've already written.

Which makes them pretty much unlike carbon offsets, but I guess someone thinks they're being amusing.

It's a clever fund-raising campaign for certain projects; I wouldn't read much more into it than that.

Re:Deliberately bad?

[Obfuscant]

My company spews out X amount of carbon a year. My Government puts a limit to Y amount of Carbon a year.

For your specific type of business. Other businesses have other limits. Other governments put other limits, or no limits, on businesses in their jurisdiction.

Since it's detrimental to my business (reducing client base) to reduce my carbon output,...

I don't know what you mean by "reducing client base". You won't lose clients if you reduce your carbon output. It may cost you a VERY large bundle of money to do it, or it may be technically impossible to do it. In either case, under that specific regulatory policy, it is more profitable to buy "credits" than to actually reduce your carbon emissions. Or it may be more profitable to simply move your company to a country where such silliness isn't public policy.

... I can purchase Carbon offsets so that some of my money goes towards greener projects.

You are sending the money to the government, or some company making a profit off of buying and selling credits. Those "carbon offsets" you are buying are carbon emissions NOT being used by other companies, who have sold their credits. There is no reason to believe that your carbon offset payment goes to "greener projects", and no reason to believe that your payment has reduced the total level of carbon emissions.

Thus I keep my clients Happy and I meet government regulation.

Thus you keep your stockholders in the black, whether they are happy about being taxed or not. You meet government regulation, but not necessarily any environmentally beneficial goals.

Now, if the system was to actually provide tax credits for actual emission reductions, that would be fair and environmentally beneficial. Just swapping "credits" is a ludicrous waste of effort.

You want to reduce the amount of Bad code you may have done, but you can't go back and change it. Buy a bad code offset.

You have even less reason to believe that a "bad code offset" will actually reduce any of the bad code you've already released than believing that a carbon offset will reduce carbon emissions. It's a touchy-feely, feel-good, politically-correct concept with little real effect.

Re:Deliberately bad?

[DAldredge]

Why would someone feel guilty for developing closed source code?

Re:Deliberately bad?

[jimbobborg]

Do you think Microsoft doesn't have any sort of internal code and bug tracking system?

Sometimes I wonder...

Re:Deliberately bad?

[Nefarious Wheel]

I think the intent is that you buy them as penance for bad code you've already written.

No way could I come up with that kind of coin.

Re:Deliberately bad?

[Surt]

Why would someone feel guilty for that? It's not like the buyer has no choice.

Re:Deliberately bad?

[Rycross]

Assuming that the guy I'm selling it to has a real choice whether to buy the car, understands that the hood is welded shut before buying, and I don't try to use legal means to keep him from unwelding the hood or getting to the engine, why should I feel bad about selling it to him?

Re:Deliberately bad?

[MrNaz]

Wrong. The real reason someone would feel bad for writing bad code is because afterwards they'd have to put up with RMS picketing their offices every morning. I can imagine the boardroom now:
Director 1: We're making millions from this closed source software, it's the company's greatest success.
Director 2: Yea, but that scary guy with the beard and the long hair keeps turning up and making my morning miserable.
Director 1: I know, he's really annoying. All in favor of scuttling our revenue in the interests of making him go away, say "aye".
Directors 1 - 20: "AYE!"

Re:Deliberately bad?

[Rycross]

In what way? Closed source says nothing about whether you actually use some of the very-bad laws on the books to prevent people from inspecting the workings of your program. Its perfectly possibly for me to write a closed-source program and not drag people to court for reverse engineering, and even write a license to that effect.

If I do not explicitly permit someone to distribute modifications of my software, that *would* fall under copyright law, but that's not covered by the analogy. In fact, its pretty difficult to come up with a car analogy that actually makes sense. Whether you view copyright as moral or not falls to your personal belief. My belief is that, despite Stallman's protestations, it is possible to distribute software under copyright morally, even though a lot of proprietary software vendors do not do so.

Re:Deliberately bad?

[ClosedSource]

I don't think it's that clever. People who frequent WTF think it's the other guy who writes bad code.

You want me to pay what?

[Drethon]

The idea is ammusing and having the money donated to a open source project is cool but the prices are a tad high for my blood...

Re:You want me to pay what?

[gmuslera]

What about IE6 supporting this? If Microsoft pays they quota just for IE6 this will mean millons in donations to Apache Foundation, FreeBSD and others.

Apache & FreeBSD = bad code?

[sopssa]

which work to eliminate bad code, such as the Apache Foundation and FreeBSD.

Wow, that's a quite direct attack.

Re:Apache & FreeBSD = bad code?

[bsDaemon]

What could possibly be bad in a code base that contains functions such as "void die_you_gravy_sucking_pig_dog(void)"?

Re:Apache & FreeBSD = bad code?

[bsDaemon]

It's from the FreeBSD shutdown.c source file.

Just call them by the real name, indulgences...

[nweaver]

* (carbon, code, whatever) offsets are really the Papal indulgences of the 21st century.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences...

[clone53421]

Yup. Environmentalism is the religion of the 21st century... and just like any religion, it can be used to control the populace and ensure that those in power remain in power.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences...

[slimjim8094]

More or less yes, but the principle is sound. Offsets are voluntary so those who feel "guilty" pay.

Essentially, no individual person or company pays for pollution - we all do, all across the world. I'm talking about any and all kinds of pollution, not just greenhouse gases.

Carbon credits - the government taxy, non-voluntary way - is a good idea because if, say, GM releases a bunch of sulfuric acid into the atmosphere, they don't need to pay for it, or any of the costs it inflicts on the planet. Instead, everybody does.

Credits are a perfect example of free-market ideals - polluting becomes a cost of doing business, and as the cost of polluting rises, companies will become more efficient or less profitable.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences...

[Lord Ender]

They are an attempt to provide an economic incentive to pollute less. Without such incentive, the tragedy of the commons ensures we will wreck our collective selves while seeking individual profits.

This is not anywhere near the same thing as imaginary religious crap. It's economics, man.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences...

[Obfuscant]

Carbon offsets are money to fund programs that actually help the environment (with luck, help enough to undo what harm you did in the first place, or even more).

I'm sorry, but buying credits from a company that doesn't produce as much carbon emission as the government says it can is in no way actually helping the environment. It's a ponzi scheme. You produce the same amount of carbon, THEY produce the same amount of carbon, but YOUR costs to do business go up and the middleman brokering the credits makes a fortune.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences...

[jeremyp]

I'm sorry, but buying credits from a company that doesn't produce as much carbon emission as the government says it can is in no way actually helping the environment.

Wrong. It gives people a financial incentive to reduce their carbon emissions if possible.

If you merely tax or fine people, they will reduce their carbon emissions to the point where the cost of further reductions would outweigh the fines/taxes they'll have to pay. If they have the prospect of selling further reductions i.e. making money out of them, there is an incentive to make further investments to cut emissions below statutory levels.

If you and I both manufacture widgets, but I invest to reduce carbon emissions below whatever limit is placed and you don't, under a tax / fining system I'd be bonkers to go below the limit, or even to the limit. If it costs me $20 to avoid a fine of $10 it'd be stupid.

Under a carbon trading system, if I reduce my emissions below the limit, I can sell the credits to you so you can continue to emit the same levels of carbon. So the people who buy your high carbon widgets are subsidising the people who buy my low carbon widgets.

I'd go so far as to say a properly constructed carbon trading system is the only way forward.

By the way, there is a precedent. The US EPA introduced a trading system for sulphur dioxide emissions and apparently it worked like a charm.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences...

[Obfuscant]

Yes, everyone produces the same amount of carbon TODAY. But with an economic incentive to produce less carbon it will be cost effective to install greener technology and produce less TOMORROW.

If it was cost effective to install greener technology and produce less carbon today, companies would do it and save money.

If it becomes cost effective TOMORROW, they'll do it TOMORROW to save money.

In the meantime, the cost of carbon offsets has done nothing but cost them, and thus every one of their customers, money. Money which makes carbon brokers richer. Costs which may force that company to move their jobs overseas. That costs us all.

It's a shell game. Plain and simple. Carbon, carbon, who's got the carbon?

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences...

[dasunt]

They are an attempt to provide an economic incentive to pollute less. Without such incentive, the tragedy of the commons ensures we will wreck our collective selves while seeking individual profits.

Instead of carbon offsets, why not tax carbon directly?

Any carbon extracted from the ground in coal or gas format will be taxed per ton. Carbon derived from recent organic sources (trees, crops) would be exempt from the tax.

Increase the taxes until our carbon use is at some desired target.

The only downside that I see is that, in plastics, carbon use doesn't necessarily translate to carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. OTOH, a manufacturer tends not to be able to show that a plastic container isn't later incinerated. So the system isn't perfect, but it is good enough.

Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences...

[Mr2001]

Creating artificial limits on a gas that exists in nature and is produced by every animal on the planet is ludicrous. A gas that is REQUIRED for the plant life on this planet, which is required for the animal life. That should be really simple to see.

You wouldn't mind drinking 100 gallons of water right now, then, right? After all, water exists in nature and is required for humans to live.

How about salt? Would you like to eat fifty pounds of salt? After all, it exists in nature and is required for human life!

But control is a strong urge. We ... must .... control .... others....

Must... only... think... in... black... and... white...

Can... never... have... too... much... of... a... good... thing...

...and now for something entirely unrelated.

[eddy the lip]

"Hopefully, they work better than carbon offsets, actually."

Way to ensure this whole thread goes off track, by trolling on an unrelated and politically charged topic. And with an example poorly chosen as proof of anything, at that.

Re:...and now for something entirely unrelated.

[SomeJoel]

"Hopefully, they work better than carbon offsets, actually."

Way to ensure this whole thread goes off track, by trolling on an unrelated and politically charged topic. And with an example poorly chosen as proof of anything, at that.

Don't pay any attention to the last line of the summary. If you ignore it, it will go away.

... just like global warming.

Re:...and now for something entirely unrelated.

[Toonol]

I've never actually met or talked to somebody that thought carbon offsets weren't a scam, except for those trying to sell them. I get your point about derailing the thread, but have to ask... do you actually think carbon offsets are legitimate?

Re:...and now for something entirely unrelated.

[Sir_Lewk]

I really hope Mozilla won't be getting money from this. If anything, they should be contributing...

Re:...and now for something entirely unrelated.

[devjoe]

I've never actually met or talked to somebody that thought carbon offsets weren't a scam, except for those trying to sell them. I get your point about derailing the thread, but have to ask... do you actually think carbon offsets are legitimate?

There are two kinds of carbon offsets. The Wikipedia Carbon offset article describes them as two markets, right up top.

The larger carbon offset market is based upon laws limiting total industrial carbon dioxide emissions, and in this market companies buy carbon offsets in the amount of carbon dioxide they are emitting, and, yes, sell any excess ones they have to other companies. The difference between this and a simple tax on carbon dioxide emissions is that the total amount of offsets available in any year is limited. These are legitimate to the extent that companies aren't cheating on emissions, and in theory somebody is checking for compliance. The "caps" link in this discussion on Wikipedia leads to a topic on emissions trading, where you can read about similar systems, including the system limiting sulfur dioxide emissions in the United States which has been around since before anybody heard of carbon offsets. However, since there is no law limiting the amount of bad code people can write, this does not compare well to "bad code credits". This is probably why GP considered it a poor example.

The smaller, consumer carbon offset market is what you're thinking of. This is where people effectively donate money to environmental causes, theoretically to pay activities that either prevent carbon dioxide from being emitted or remove it from the air. I won't argue with you here; I agree that at least some of these are not legitimate, or have other problems that make them not effective. And it is this kind of carbon offset which is more relevant to the discussion at hand.

Not realistic

[DoofusOfDeath]

I can't really see how Microsoft can afford this...

Re:Not realistic

[Monkeedude1212]

Windows ME alone would probably throw them bankrupt.

Re:Not realistic

[gregarican]

Then Microsoft Bob would put them to the brink of becoming corporate antimatter...

The only possible way this works is...

[Radtastic]

... if the bad-code offset is a penalty after-the-fact for putting out bad code.

And no, I'm not going to RTFA. This is a horrible idea.

Re:The only possible way this works is...

[Monkeedude1212]

It's actually a great idea. Essentially its a way to donate to Open Source projects and better coding without having to decide which one and going through the hassle of contacting the project manager and trying to get his paypal information to send some cash over.

It is not so much a penalty as it is a donation, simply because no one is forcing you. They simply structured it around an already existing system (carbon offsets) - probably to give it a more meaningful feel to it.

I'm selling carbon offsets!

[ghostis]

Reply with your email address and I will send you my PayPal info! Thanks for saving Christmas^H^H^H^H^Hthe environment.

Bad code offsets?

[ozbird]

You mean like this?

JMP 0x0BAD

Re:Bad code offsets?

[clone53421]

That is a goto, so yes.

Lutherans

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Catholic, let me tell all you greens and bad coders that letting people buy their way out of their sins just gets stuff nailed to your door. But good luck with it anyway.

Re:cyber-indugences

[skywolf3]

You're missing the point. The point is to poke fun at carbon schemes and raise money for free software. It's not to actually offset bad code, just to support good code writing organizations.

Good thing they aren't mandatory

[damn_registrars]

Or slashdot would go broke in a hurry.

Carbon trading is stupid.

[arthurh3535]

No, it really is. It advocates that 3rd world countries can only advance to 1st world status by polluting... a lot. Instead of trying to develop these countries without all the pollution we had to do in the past, they are basically saying that 1st world countries have to subsidize that pollution advancement by lowering their own pollution in response.
 
It's a totally assanine proposition and basically is advocating that it's fine for 3rd world countries to pollute if they advance themselves up.

Gave up on DailyWTF

[gauauu]

The day Alex announced this was the day I finally stopped reading the DailyWTF. It's gotten worse and worse over the past few years, with stories that were so embellished that you stop caring. The fun part about the site was laughing at real IT blunders. But Alex and his creative writing team overdid the writing to the point where the stories were often incredibly far from the real fact (the original submitters would often explain the "real" story in the comments". This might be bearable if their writing wasn't so awful. But often they interchange important character names, have horribly confusing grammatical constructs, and generally just make a mess out of the stories.

Then to top it off, Alex shows up occasionally and comes up with nonsense like this instead of posting another story.

I'm done. Yes, it was amusing for awhile, but I'm moving on.

Re:Put your "oh oh" in my "oh oh."

[Shikaku]

There is no amount of offsets you can buy for Windows ME.

It's like a swear box

[slim]

It seems like a lot of people don't get this.

It's like a swear box. You know, in an attempt to get out of the habit of swearing, you put a dollar in box every time you swear. The contents of the box goes to charity.

This is exactly the same, except that in this case the habit you're trying to get out of is releasing bad code.

We all sneak out bad code from time to time - "it's ugly but it works; I can clean it up, or I can ship it and have an extra hour doing [insert recreation of choice]". The 'swear box' makes cleaning it up seem more attractive. And if you don't, a worthy cause benefits.

The analogy to carbon offsets is pretty weak, but I guess it's wry humour of a sort.

Re:It's like a swear box

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that's a dollar to the swear box.

Stupidity Offsets?

[jameskojiro]

Maybe we can sell Stupidity Offsets to dump rich people, I can think of a couple dozen people in Hollywood who would qualify to buy these, they would go towards educating people in universities on the subject of physics, chemistry, and biology.

Oh and I get to keep 10% of the money for my own "Operating Expenses".

Richard Garriott's take on carbon offsets

[ryry]

Richard G blasted into space last year, and to offset the tons of jet fuel his spaceship burned, he purchased some carbon offsets. At a talk in Austin earlier this year, he made what I thought was an interesting point: carbon offsets might not work as effectively as planned, but they help get you in the habit of doing something about the problem. When/if we discover a better way, then you've already got the habit formed -- you just switch it to whatever this new method might be.

I'm sure there are some flaws in that but it was an interesting take I hadn't heard before.

Offsets are crap

[rrohbeck]

Now if we could have a tax on bad code on the other hand...

Re:If you write bad code...

[mcgrew]

I know my code is all peaches and cream!

Typo: You misspelled "patches".

why not mangle some climate code?

[Budenny]

I work in the climate science department of a well known university in E Anglia, UK, and am proud to be the owner of a 4 x 4 and also an excruciatingly bad programmer. No, sorry, I got that wrong, I have no car, walk to work, and only write in equisitely structured C++.

You can all assuage your guilt from driving those 4 x 4s and writing all that crap code in Python. Ruby or whatever by sending me large sums of money, and I will continue my low guilt lifestyle as long as the cheques keep coming.

You can carry on shopping at malls in your 4 x 4s, and writing your terrible code.

We will all be happy. I will get rich. Everyone wins. We save the planet. What's the problem?

More honest than carbon offsets

[Quila]

This seems to be more of a fun way to give to charity than the guilt-driven indulgence scam that is carbon offsets.