pushcx

No. In short, in US law, CSAM is a visual depiction of a real-world act of child sexual abuse. Visual depictions like you're describing are covered under a different law, and I'm not aware of it having a short name. There's a good expert thread on this with links to the relevant federal laws here: https://bsky.app/profile/rahaeli.bsky.social/post/3lbt7zkvlq...

I timed it a few times.

This isn't elaborated on in the piece, but it does mention that it's written in the context of the Fermi paradox. Adding 50,000 years of technological development and a 1,000 year rebooting phase at each star system doesn't meaningfully change how long it would take life to spread when considered against the 13,500,000,000 years since stars developed.

Or it's a distinction without a difference to the site owner. Ever prod service I've run has seen significantly more abuse from human users using alias services, especially protonmail. I'm not surprised that some owners have chosen to block it entirely, given their resources, but I'd prefer to see it used as a signal in a more sophisticated system if possible.

I had wanted the same thing for a long time and jj + difftastic has satisfied me.

It's not intentional on this author's part, but this is a great example of how Google rewards people posting slop. The oldest posts on the blog read normally, the new stuff this post says it added to satisfy Google all reads like this post.

The stock market has liquidity, fungibility, low transaction costs, etc etc. https://jlcollinsnh.com/2013/05/29/why-your-house-is-a-terri...

Thanks, I appreciate you sorting out the timeline on such a heated issue.

    What followed was extraordinary: 329 comments and counting, ranging from thoughtful concern to outright harassment.
    The thread did not stop at words. One user posted My Little Pony drawings of themselves strangling the "project janitor that pushed vibecoded commits":
    It spread to Hacker News and Lobsters, generating hundreds more comments.

Please correct your article.

when I saw someone complain about what he thought the title should be, I just used his idea instead of my own. This upset the moderator so much when he saw that I was optimizing my writing style based on feedback from his site

I was unaware the blog copied my title change until seeing this on HN and I have no emotional reaction to it. I've replaced over a hundred clickbait titles and it's not an emotionally evocative chore. Anyone can read my contemporaneous explanation at https://lobste.rs/c/hjlmw1 to see my reasoning and judge for themself how upset I sound.

This title and premise are incorrect. It's not a bait-and-switch unless the bait was unavailable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch Vivado really was available free. There's a lot of potential criticisms one could write of the decision to change that (and basically all of them were made in this and the previous thread), but bait-and-switch is not one of them.

"GitHub only gets better if people who give a shit stick around to make it better"

What's the mechanism of action here? What changes if I stay? What changes if I give more or less of a shit? Is there javascript telemetry feeding my shit into a dashboard with a calibrated shitometer for executives to consult when they set quarterly objectives? My account is six weeks younger than mitchellh's and I've been watching GitHub fall apart for the last year, what will happen because I stick around to watch for another year? Besides that I will get covered in shit.

You're an employee. What changes if you stick around? Back in October 2025, the GitHub CTO Federov prioritized moving to Azure above feature work (https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-to-a...). Yesterday he recommitted to it (https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/an-update-on-...), writing "We started executing our plan to increase GitHub’s capacity by 10X in October 2025 with a goal of substantially improving reliability and failover." GitHub has had six bad months of increasing bugs and sharply decreased uptime, and the CTO just recommitted to staying the course. You've explicitly been directed to move to Azure, not to give a shit or to make things better.

So I'll defer to your direct expertise. From the outside, Heroku stalled and died because Salesforce prioritized everything else in its business above Heroku. Are GitHub's priorities so different? Does you giving a shit make Azure and Copilot the best top priorities for GitHub? Will Azure and Copilot be why I stop seeing SPA jank? Will Azure and Copilot be why I can see my list of open PRs? Will Azure and Copilot be why I see something more than the 500 unicorn? Will Azure and Copilot stop the spam PRs that want to undermine the quality of my code? Will Azure and Copilot lead to anything other than the same corporate dismissal and dysfunction that led to Heroku? Will you giving a shit matter?

This is a little late for your nice jacket, but a lot of zipper damage comes from dirt getting into the teeth and then the zip grinds everything up. Outdoors shops sell a zipper lubricant to keep the dirt from sticking.

There's a lobbying group called 5rights that has designed and promoted the UK OSA, AU OSA, California KOSA, Federal KOSA, and more. This isn't some conspiracy. They take proudly take credit for these bills on their website, and in news coverage you'll see their same couple media personalities over and over: https://5rightsfoundation.com/our-work/

As usual for online censorship, Techdirt has had excellent coverage for years: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/baroness-beeban-kidron/

Rails's public release was July 2004: https://rubytalk.org/t/ann-rails-0-5-0-the-end-of-vaporware/...

Django's was July 2005: https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2005/jul/15/chipy/

TypeID is similar, though it uses the UUIDv7 directly: https://github.com/jetify-com/typeid Maybe the formalization would be interesting to you.

It doesn't have a checksum, though, that seems like an improvement that's worth a few bytes.

I don't know why you think I want a "technical win" from you, but I'm not seeking your approval. I corrected your mistake about the URL and the policy, like I corrected the author's mistake about what I removed. If you and other sites prefer different policies, it's no skin off my nose.

The link was https://effective-haskell.com/

You got a DM and email with the title and URL when your story was removed. This would've been 2023-08-03 with the subject "Your story has been edited by a moderator", if you want to look back: https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/blob/86e1d0b6ac6bac5210...

But you're correct on the second part, there isn't a level of activity that entitles anyone to post a sales page with nothing to discuss on it. Your activity was taken into account, though. Typically if a new user's first activity is to post an ad I'll also ban the site or user. I understand the rules aren't as permissive as you wanted, but ads don't start good discussions.

You did not share a link to a blog post. The title was "Effective Haskell is a hands-on practical book way to learn Haskell. No math or formal CS needed" and it linked to the site advertising your book for sale. I removed it because we don't get good discussions out of ads.

Left writes:

The government’s position is that I should have known I couldn’t trade stocks I’d publicly praised—for some unspecified period of time. I didn’t lie, I simply traded too soon.

The criminal complaint is here, allegations begin on page 7: https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/andrew-le...

The part Left seems to be responding to in his article is:

defendant LEFT often built his positions using inexpensive, short-dated options contracts that would expire within zero to five trading days and submitted limit orders to close his positions as soon as the Targeted Security reached a certain price.

The generic term for the government's allegations is not "the opposite of insider trading", it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump

There's a much higher-ROI way to encode these, write a test that checks the current date. Maybe a very large project would prefer not to fail everyone's build for it, but this is fine for a couple dozen developers.

Example: https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/commit/9e99fbf1d3cc441e...

There's a couple dozen at Midewin, too: https://www.fs.usda.gov/r09/midewin/animals-plants/bison-pro...

It must be part of a larger marketing push; their boss(?) appeared on the Odd Lots podcast a couple days ago to talk about this work: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/scott-kupors-new-plan-... He spent a lot of time promoting this new National Design Studio's attempt to attract tech works for 2-year commitments to drop into existing orgs, which is basically how the 18F PIF program worked before it was dissolved earlier this year. Perhaps abruptly terminating a program to reinvent it from scratch six months later is very efficient.

18F: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18F Overview of the related programs: https://willslack.com/pif-18f-usds/

(A warning about Odd Lots: the hosts never question or push back on people talking their book. This especially bad with politicians and political appointees, who are often very creative during their interviews.)

The scrapers will not attempt to discover and use an efficient representation. They will attempt to hit every URL they can discover on a site, and they'll do it at a rate of hundreds of hits per second, from enough IPs that each only requests at a rate of 1/minute. It's rude to talk down to people for not implementing a technique that you can't get scrapers to adopt, and for matching their investment in performance to their needs instead of accurately predicting years beforehand that traffic would dramatically change.

Asking as a newbie in this area, could you share any pointers to language design for performance?

I'm aware of the early difference between compiled and interpreted languages. Luau has to be interpreted to meet its security goals, and I'm asking with similar goals in mind, so I guess I'm starting from that significant limitation.

The answer to all your scenarios is yes. There is no amount of free labor someone can give away that entitles the recipients to more free labor.

The idea is that users were relying on a functionality to be maintained (the "rug"), and the Datastar developers decided to continue maintaining it behind a paywall (the "pull").

Why were the users so entitled to free ongoing maintenance that its end is worth describing using a term from financial fraud?

It's also getting a lot flakier. Around October or November of last year I realized that every week I see another bit of SPA jankiness. I lose my scroll position because some component has appeared or disappeared above view. The issues list shows hours-old state and does not refresh. A button doesn't work. A page loads but everything below the header is unstyled. I expand the build details but it collapses closed every time a stage finishes. A filename header appears twice. New comments don't appear. On and on.

It's very frustrating to have a tool that has spent 15 years fading into the background of reliable infrastructure become an intrusive, distracting mess.

After a couple months with jujutsu it's almost completely replaced my use of git. It’s a lot to hope for, but just as jujutsu surveyed a couple decades of VCS to syncretize a huge improvement, I do hope someone will do the same for collaborating with jujutsu. GitHub PRs feel very unfortunately frozen in amber because their popularity makes it very hard to fix the core UI design problems it has with multiple tabs, incoherent timeline, edited commits, missing "8 more comments", and now a steady drip of SPA jank.

The big remaining feature of GitHub is the network effect of coworkers and potential contributors already being logged in, and there could be a race between a competitor neutralizing that with bidirectional sync (see git-bug) and GitHub getting their usability problems sorted. Microsoft's legendary resistance to breaking changes means there's a very big window available.

Yep: https://github.com/bishopfox/unredacter