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

90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

claudescode.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 252 posts

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#61

Post by ModernMech »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #22

Do people really put weight in stars? It seems completely unrelated to anything but, well, popularity. Even when I modify other peoples' code I fork to a private repo and maintain my changes separately, and I'm fairly certain I have never starred a repo.

Probably not today, but there was a time when you could get funding based on just a github repo with a bunch of stars.

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#62

Post by pojzon »

madeofpalk wrote: post #48
louiereederson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The instability is related to their Azure migration isn't it? Cynically you could say it hasn't been helped by the rolling RIFs at Microsoft

Does anyone actually know? So far I've just seen people guessing, and seeing that repeated.

I dont believe sudden influx of few million bots running 24/7 generating PRa and commits and invoking actions does not impact GitHub.

It even sounds silly when you say it this way.

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#63

Post by ModernMech »

hk1337 wrote: post #46

How long does it normally take projects to get stars though? You're not going to have a project with 100+ stars overnight or even within a month, you have to promote the project?

It depends on how much you promote your repo and how big it is. I know when my repo gets posted somewhere because I'll get a little burst of stars for a few days and then it'll calm down until it's posted somewhere again. Much larger repos will get stars at a more constant rate as they reach a critical liftoff velocity.

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#64

Post by progmetaldev »

louiereederson wrote: post #38
madrox wrote: post #31

Already enough comments about base rate fallacy, so instead I'll say I'm worried for the future of GitHub. Its business is underpinned by pre-AI assumptions about usage that, based on its recent instability, I suspect is being invalidated by surges in AI-produced code and commits. I'm worried, at some point, they'll be forced to take an unpopular stance and either restrict free usage tiers or restrict AI somehow. I'm…

The instability is related to their Azure migration isn't it? Cynically you could say it hasn't been helped by the rolling RIFs at Microsoft

I keep hearing this, and I know Azure has had some issues recently, but I rarely have an issue with Azure like I do with GitHub. I have close to 100 websites on Azure, running on .NET, mostly on Azure App Service (some on Windows 2016 VMs). These sites don't see the type of traffic or amount of features that GitHub has, but if we're talking about Azure being the issue, I'm wondering if I just don't see this because there aren't enough people dependent on these sites compared to GitHub?

Or instead, is it mistakes being made migrating to Azure, rather than Azure being the actual problem? Changing providers can be difficult, especially if you relied on any proprietary services from the old provider.

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#65

Post by philipp-gayret »

madrox wrote: post #31

Already enough comments about base rate fallacy, so instead I'll say I'm worried for the future of GitHub. Its business is underpinned by pre-AI assumptions about usage that, based on its recent instability, I suspect is being invalidated by surges in AI-produced code and commits. I'm worried, at some point, they'll be forced to take an unpopular stance and either restrict free usage tiers or restrict AI somehow. I'm…

Having managed GitHub enterprises for thousands of developers who will ping you at the first sign of instability.. I can tell you there has not been one year pre-AI where GitHub was fully "stable" for a month or maybe even a week, and except for that one time with Cocoapods that downtime has always been their own doing.

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#67

Post by zahrevsky »

Aurornis wrote: post #11

Perfect example of a base rate fallacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy What percentage of GitHub activity goes to GitHub repos with less than 2 stars? I would guess it's close to the same number.

Off topic, but it reminds me of another principle: every geographic heatmap is just a population map. https://xkcd.com/1138/

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#69

Post by heliumtera »

dev_l1x_be wrote: post #16

Did we democratise software engineering? Seriously, I created a bunch of tools that I find useful without the bloated framework issues that are present in software nowadays. Jokes on me if something does not work.

Software production yes engineering no lol

Re: 90% of Claude-linked output going to GitHub repos w <2 stars

#70

Post by ekjhgkejhgk »

madrox wrote: post #31

Already enough comments about base rate fallacy, so instead I'll say I'm worried for the future of GitHub. Its business is underpinned by pre-AI assumptions about usage that, based on its recent instability, I suspect is being invalidated by surges in AI-produced code and commits. I'm worried, at some point, they'll be forced to take an unpopular stance and either restrict free usage tiers or restrict AI somehow. I'm…

Fuck GitHub. It's a corporate attempt at owning git by sprinkling socials on top. I hope it fails.

If you need to host git + a nice gui (as opposed to needing to promote your shit) Forgejo is free software.

Post reply on HN