Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Updated rate limits for unauthenticated requests

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–187 of 187 posts

Re: Updated rate limits for unauthenticated requests

#181

Post by jakebasile »

gnabgib wrote: post #3

60 req/hour for unauthenticated users 5000 req/hour for authenticated - personal 15000 req/hour for authenticated - enterprise org According to https://docs.github.com/en/rest/using-the-rest-api/rate-limi... I bump into this just browsing a repo's code (unauth).. seems like it's one of the side effects of the AI rush.

I bump into these limits just using a few public install scripts for things like Atuin, Babashka, and Clojure on a single machine on my home IP. They're way too low to be reasonable.

Re: Updated rate limits for unauthenticated requests

#182

Post by naikrovek »

pdimitar wrote: post #163
naikrovek wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

… I… what has been embraced, extended and extinguished? I see no MS or GitHub specific extension, here. Copilot exists, and so do many other tools. Copilot can use lots of non-Microsoft models, too, including models from non-Microsoft companies. You can also get git repository hosting from other companies. You can even do it yourself. So, explain yourself. What has been embraced, extended, and extinguished? Be specif…

I'm with you, but let's not forget that they haven't started the extinguishing yet. They might yet do it. The extending they've done plenty: issue tracker, wiki, discussions etc.

Those things all existed before Microsoft bought them, and they’re all present in competing products, even free ones.

Re: Updated rate limits for unauthenticated requests

#183

Post by naikrovek »

tomhow wrote: post #177
naikrovek wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> What the hell are … no, this is not a drug. This is a mental illness. Get help. This is an unacceptable comment on HN and we have to ban accounts that do it repeatedly. We've warned you in the past about inappropriate comments. Please remind yourself of the guidelines and take care to observe them in future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Ban me then.

The person I responded to clearly has a mental illness and needs help.

The people behind this site think it’s some bastion of civility, and it just isn’t. People can be assholes using any words they choose, and they do so continuously here, but you mods don’t care because your rules are followed.

“Orange website bad” isn’t a meme for no reason. It’s because the orange website is bad. So fucken ban me.

Re: Updated rate limits for unauthenticated requests

#184

Post by tomhow »

naikrovek wrote: post #183
tomhow wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What the hell are … no, this is not a drug. This is a mental illness. Get help. This is an unacceptable comment on HN and we have to ban accounts that do it repeatedly. We've warned you in the past about inappropriate comments. Please remind yourself of the guidelines and take care to observe them in future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Ban me then. The person I responded to clearly has a mental illness and needs help. The people behind this site think it’s some bastion of civility, and it just isn’t. People can be assholes using any words they choose, and they do so continuously here, but you mods don’t care because your rules are followed. “Orange website bad” isn’t a meme for no reason. It’s because the orange website is bad. So fucken ban me.

We don't need to ban you, we just need you, along with everyone else here, to observe the guidelines, the first of which in the Comments section, is to ”be kind”. If everyone made the effort to do that, the site wouldn't be bad. It's no big deal, and it's not that hard to observe the guidelines if you're sincere about making a positive contribution to the site.

Re: Updated rate limits for unauthenticated requests

#185

Post by naikrovek »

tomhow wrote: post #184
naikrovek wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ban me then. The person I responded to clearly has a mental illness and needs help. The people behind this site think it’s some bastion of civility, and it just isn’t. People can be assholes using any words they choose, and they do so continuously here, but you mods don’t care because your rules are followed. “Orange website bad” isn’t a meme for no reason. It’s because the orange website is bad. So fucken ban me.

We don't need to ban you, we just need you, along with everyone else here, to observe the guidelines, the first of which in the Comments section, is to ”be kind”. If everyone made the effort to do that, the site wouldn't be bad. It's no big deal, and it's not that hard to observe the guidelines if you're sincere about making a positive contribution to the site.

I'm 100% kind when people are kind to me.

I am 0% kind when people are unkind to me.

I've lived my entire life rolling over when people are assholes to me because I don't want to make the situation worse, or as seen here, throw the 2nd punch. the 2nd punch is always the one that gets caught. Never the first.

Re: Updated rate limits for unauthenticated requests

#186

Post by globie »

roughly wrote: post #172
globie wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of commercial pirates, and those commercial uses were grouped in with noncommercial sharing in much the same way you are doing with scraping. Am I wrong in assuming most of this scraping comes from people utilizing AI agents for things like AI-assisted coding? If an AI agent scrapes a page at a users' request (say the 1 billionth git commit scraped today), do you consider that "loot[ing] a store"? Wh…

> There are plenty of commercial pirates, and those commercial uses were grouped in with noncommercial sharing I don't think many people were particularly sympathetic to people making money off piracy - by and large, people were upset because people committing piracy for personal use were getting hit with the kinds of fines and legal charges usually reserved for, well, people who make money off piracy. > Am I wrong i…

>You understand the problem here may repeat itself elsewhere as well, right?

I do, and how is this to cap off our discussion:

>You move your money to another bank, because the increased security annoys you.

On my way out, I would quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I go out of my way to help my community, and I expect those I support to do the same. That bank could put more resources into investigating/catching the robbers who are attacking not just the bank but the security and liberty of their community, or it could treat every customer with more suspicion than they did yesterday. I know where the latter option leads, and I won't stand for it.

You're right that it repeats itself elsewhere. Often, I find.

Re: Updated rate limits for unauthenticated requests

#187

Post by simoncion »

umbra07 wrote: post #93
simoncion wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, Joseph Nacchio (the CEO of Qwest Communications) went to jail for like a decade for refusing to help the NSA violate FISA circa 2001.

He went to jail because he refused to help the NSA violate FISA, and then he sold the stock knowing that his refusal would cause the stock to drop (i.e. insider trading). His conviction was entirely on the basis of insider trading. The SEC went after him, not the NSA or DOJ or whatever.

> His conviction was entirely on the basis of insider trading.

Insider trading charges are to high-flying executive-types as "Based on my training and experience, I detected the distinct odor of cannabis on the suspect's person" is to folks who are committing the crime of walking while black near an officer with something to prove.

Seriously, these regs are very, very vague and open-ended, and a ton of deference is given to the SEC.

Post reply on HN