aka, you "anonymous" code will now be trained on our next coding models.
GitHub CLI now collects pseudoanonymous telemetry
241–250 of 368 posts
Re: GitHub CLI now collects pseudoanonymous telemetry
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither of these two commands are any more really-operates than the other.
How do you figure? Are you discarding the semantics of how people invoke git? If so why advocate for "restore" to begin with?
I don’t know what the semantics of invoking Git means?
These two commands operate on the same level of abstraction. And they should be equally powerful, which means that whichever you choose to learn will be able to serve all of your restore-content needs. That's what I mean.
Of course there is always the pedagogic cost of having two similar commands.
Re: GitHub CLI now collects pseudoanonymous telemetry
#243Why we collect telemetry ...our team needs visibility into how features are being used in practice. We use this data to prioritize our work and evaluate whether features are meeting real user needs. I'm curious why corporate development teams always feel the need to spy on their users? Is it not sufficient to employ good engineering and design practices? Git has served us well for 20+ years without detailed analytics…
Because dashboard need to show number go up
Re: GitHub CLI now collects pseudoanonymous telemetry
#244Do they mean "pseudonymous" telemetry meaning "non-identifying telemetry", or do they mean "pseudoanonymous" telemetry meaning telemetry is that not really anonymous? Those two words have almost exactly opposite meanings, and as stated, they are literally saying they are collecting identifiable data.
The page only uses the term “pseudonymous”. “Pseudoanonymous” seems to be an invention of the HN submitter.
Re: GitHub CLI now collects pseudoanonymous telemetry
#245Why does github need a CLI? Some people just seem to want to make their own lives harder...
Re: GitHub CLI now collects pseudoanonymous telemetry
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
>wouldn’t be far to imagine I explicitly said I agree it’s a distinct possibility, but that’s not proof. If you have actual info on what they collect and how it’s used I can assess it. As it is we don’t know the extent or uses at all, we are speculating.
Personally if I don't have any evidence of something, I'll leave it unsaid if I like what Valve is doing about that something or not. Saying "We don't have evidence either way, we're just speculating, so therefore I respect what Valve does" feels like the wrong way around. But you do you :)
>But you do you :)
This was unnecessary and patronizing. Clearly this won't be productive as it's clear what I am trying to say, but you seem to intent on taking a narrow interpretation of my point to paint me as someone who blindly trusts Valve (I don't). Have a good one man.
Re: GitHub CLI now collects pseudoanonymous telemetry
#247*pseudonymous
The article doesn’t use the word “pseudoanonymous”, only “pseudonymous”.
Re: GitHub CLI now collects pseudoanonymous telemetry
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
It goes the other way as well. Usage data isn't equivalent to asking users either. A solid percentage of bad decisions in tech can be traced to someone, somewhere forgetting that distinction and trusting usage data that says it's it's okay to remove because it's infrequently used.
Yeah, it's not a good discussion without concrete examples. One: Building a good UX involves guesswork and experiments. You don't know what will be best for most users until you try something. You will often be wrong, and you rarely find the global maximum on the first try. This applies to major features but also the most trivial UI details like whether users understand that this label can be clicked or that this but…
> You don't know what will be best for most users until you try something.
That's because you don't understand your users. If you did, you wouldn't need to spy on them.
> you rarely find the global maximum on the first try
One never finds the "global maximum" with telemetry, at best a local sort-of maximum. To find what's best, you need understanding, which you never get from telemetry. Telemetry tells you what was done, not why or what was in the people's mind when it was done.
Re: GitHub CLI now collects pseudoanonymous telemetry
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're only flying blind if you make decisions not looking and thinking. Analytics isn't the only way to figure out "what your users actually care about", you can also try the old school way, commonly referred to as "Talking with people", then after taking notes, you think about it, maybe discuss with others. Don't take what people say at face value, but think about it together with your knowledge and experience, and…
Sure, you can spend the weeks to months of expensive and time consuming work it takes to get a fuzzy, half accurate and biased picture of what your users workflows look like through user interviews and surveys. Or you can look at the analytics, which tell you everything you need to know immediately, always up to date, with perfect precision. Sometimes HN drives me crazy. From this thread you’d think telemetry is scre…
"You’d think telemetry is screen recording your every move" - that's literally what tracing and telemetry is about.
"Sure, you can spend the weeks to months of expensive and time consuming work it takes to get a fuzzy, half accurate and biased picture of what your users workflows look like through user interviews and surveys. Or you can look at the analytics, which tell you everything you need to know immediately, always up to date, with perfect precision." -> your analytics will never show what you didn't measure - it will only show what you already worked on - at best, it's some kind of validator mechanism - not a driver for feature exploration.
This kind of monitoring need to go through the documented data exposure - and it's a sufficient argument for a company to stop using github immediately if they take security seriously.
But I'd add that if you take security seriously you are not on Github anyway.
Re: GitHub CLI now collects pseudoanonymous telemetry
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm curious why corporate development teams always feel the need to spy on their users Unfortunately this is due to a large part of "decision makers" being non-technical folks, not being able to understand how the tools is actually used, as they don't use such tools themselves. So some product manager "responsible" for development tooling needs this sort of stuff to be able to perform in their job, just as some clu…
Man if I had a nickle for every time a PM asked me to violate user privacy for the purposes of making a slide that will be shown to their boss for 2.5 seconds I'd probably make enough to actually retire someday.
There's obviously misuse and abuse in the world, but telemetry from production systems out in the wild is incredibly useful for all kinds of decision-making. It's silly to dismiss it outright.