This part from the article supports this sentiment:

In a pleasant surprise, reactions have been positive. Throttled organizations were “surprised and apologetic,” mistaking issues for malice rather than “ignorance, unawareness.”

I sneakily changed our pipeline to pull from the in-house docker registry, and for pipelines to require pulling from package repos only when locks changed. Our CI is faster than every other team, but nobody noticed.

So yeah, charge the companies! Please!

How come this is not an obvious improvement opportunity that materializes in other teams too, and visibly so, rather than “sneakily” hidden?

Isn’t it better not only for performance but also for reliability?

Yeah, I was quite irritated copying that for the quoting 😅

The article doesn’t even mention this critical risk and history. Huge gap.

Think about whether TODOs will be revisited, and how you can guarantee that. What do you gain and lose by replacing warnings with TODOs.

In my projects and work projects, I advocate for:

• Warnings and TODOs are fine only in initial development before release/stability and in feature branches during development
• TODOs are almost never revisited, so document state and information instead of hypotheticals; document opportunities over TODOs, document known shortcomings and risks, etc
• If there is good reason to keep and ignore warnings, document the reasoning, and we can update our CI/Jenkins quality gate to a new baseline of accepted warnings instead of suppressing them (this pretty much never happens)

Dotnet warning suppression attributes have a Justification property. Editorconfig severity, disabling, suppression can have a comment.

If it’s your own project and you know when and how you will revisit, what do you gain by dropping the warning? A no-warning, but then you have TODOs with the same uncertainties?

I do. But I’m very selective and critical in choosing and trusting the right ones. They’re also not my only source.

I don’t think YouTube reviews are any worse than other forms of reviews. There are plenty of bad text reviews out there, too.

It’s a fund you donate to; they invest the money, then fund open source with the investment gains.

I posted a comment on this other post that summarizes the most relevant (because it wasn’t clear to me either, and as a note/explanation to myself too).

Data-driven grant model. There’s no perfect model for distributing OSS grants. Our approach is an open, measurable, algorithmic (but not automatic) model, […] We’re finalizing the first version of the selection model after the public launch, and its high-level description is at osendowment/model.

The fund invests all donations in a low-risk portfolio and uses only the investment income for grants, making it independent of annual budgets and market volatility. Even a modest $10M fund at this rate would generate ~$500K every year — enough for $10K grants to 50 critical open source projects.

Currently standing at $700k.

Regarding the model:

We aim to focus our support on the core of open-source ecosystems — like ~1% of packages accounting for 99% of downloads and dependencies. Our model shall be a data-driven approximation of the global usage of the open-source supply chain, helping to detect its most critical but underfunded elements.

Screenshots of both:

“Classic”	“New”

Well, you can see I use dark color scheme, which apparently got lost. Make a guess how much better I like that.

It’s not my full monitor width because of vertical browser tabs, but even then the horizontal distance between left nav bar and top right nav toolbar is horrendous.

The spacing is wasteful, the sizing is unnecessarily big.

It’s worse in every way. Less accessible, less readable, less scannable, less overview.

I wish they would simply drop their new design draft completely.

For anyone visiting the site thinking “looks like before for me” like I did, at the top there’s a link to “try out the new site”.

Their blog post, research blog post, previous community feedback, feedback form.

We onboarded our team with VS integrated Copilot.

I regularly use inline suggestions. I sometimes use the suggestions that go beyond what VS suggested before Copilot license… I am regularly annoyed at the suggestions moving off code, even greyed out sometimes being ambiguous with grey text like comma and semicolon, and control conflicting with basic cursor navigation (CTRL+Right arrow)

I am very selective about where I use Copilot. Even for simple systematic changes, I often prefer my own editing, quick actions, or multi cursor, because they are deterministic and don’t require a focused review that takes the same amount of time but with worse mental effect.

Probably more than my IDE “AI”, I use AI search to get information. I have the knowledge to assess results, and know when to check sources anyway, in addition, or instead.

My biggest issue with our AI is in the code some of my colleagues produce and give me for review, and that I don’t/can’t know how much they themselves thought about the issues and solution at hand. A lack of description, or worse, AI generated summaries, are an issue in relation to that.

/edit: Here is my comment on the post four months ago.

And it’s so popular! It must be good!

Many times I’ve used piefed, wrote a comment, some longer some shorter, and without fail, it denied posting after writing it out but without telling me specifically why I can’t post. Just no permission. Consequently, it never stuck to me.

I’ve been using TortoiseGit since the beginning, but it’s Windows-only.

In TortoiseGit, the Log view is my single entry point to all regular and semi-regular operations.

Occasionally, I use native git CLI to manage refs (archive old tags into a different ref path, mass-remote-delete, etc).

Originally, it was a switch from TortoiseSVN to TortoiseGit, and from then on, no other GUI or TUI met my needs and wants. I explored/tried out many alternative GUIs and TUIs over the years, but none felt as intuitive, gave as much overview, or capabilities. Whenever I’m in Visual Studio and use git blame, I’m reminded that it is lacking - in the blame view you can’t blame the previous versions to navigate backwards through history within a code view. I can do that in TortoiseGit.

I’ve also tried out Gitbutler and jj, which are interesting in that they’re different. Ultimately, they couldn’t convince me for regular use when git works well enough and additional tooling can introduce new complexities and issues when you don’t make a full switch. I remember Gitbutler added refs making git use impractical. jj had a barrier to entry, to understand and follow the concepts and process, which I think I simply did not pass yet to have a more accurate assessment.

I did explore TUIs also as no-install-required fallback alternatives, but in practice, I never needed them. When I do use the console, I’m familiar with native git to cover my needs. Remote shell: native git, locally: Nushell on top of native git for mass queries and operations.

pen and paper is decentralized storage too, but the push and fetch sync protocols are a lot of work

I expected alpha becoming beta, but the download has no such label at all. Is it considered stable now?

Their news doesn’t say much about the drop of and about the new status either.

The Release 28 is our first release without the Alpha label: our development process has matured, our releases are more frequent, and our commitment to quality has never been higher.

This doesn’t seem programming-related. Am I missing something?

When I was researching keyboards recently, I stumbled over a pro gamer (I believe) YouTuber who was quite vocal about pretty much all gear marketed as “gaming gear” is overpriced marketing bullshit. Apparently, they tested dozens of keyboards, mice, and headsets over the years. It certainly matched my impression of reading tests about products previously.

“Gamer” chairs are racecar chairs meant to keep you from sliding sideways, not being fit for long sitting sessions on a PC. Prefer a good or decent office chair. “Gamer” headsets are worse and more expensive than other headsets. Keyboards and mice are mostly marketing. etc.

Regarding input, they made a point about physical human limitations and state like sleep and caffeine intake having much more of an effect than the hardware you use.

2022 update

So this article is quite old. There are keyboard switches now that activate as soon as you activate the key, and that can recognize lift and press without passing a trigger point. If you want that kind of edge, those are the top performers right now. I’d be more interested in the technology and maybe playful capabilities than the performance they add.

I’m always way too thorough when researching products before buying…

I thought I remembered a standardized metadata file format you can place on your website, but I can’t find it.

GitHub defines FUNDING

Brave webbrowser attempted something like that with Brave Rewards, but through ads, and basically collected for themselves until the websites actually signed up for Brave Rewards.

I remember Flattr.

Claims that it can, but no evidence or anecdotal examples of how it worked in practice.

“Yeah, I can do that task. I’m very experienced in struggling to implement stuff like that.”