451–460 of 804 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes sense given the ubiquity of agentic coding. I made a joke to my coworker today that all we do is make sure AI agents can communicate with other AI agents.
It’s funny how the quality of the average commit message has gone up, now that we rarely read or write them directly anymore.
"Since April, monthly commits have grown from 1.4 billion to 2.9 billion. " Wow, that is some incredible growth in a really short time.
So much more stuff and growing- what it is actually useful for ? Are we getting actually more done than with previous volumes or is it just all wasted energy?
But ofc, slop has increased a lot more as well.
I applaud GitHub. However, I think no matter how valiant they are they will not climb out from under this. The scale problem will keep getting worse, and it's getting worse in a way I don't think is translating to more money for them. Sooner or later, they're going to have to charge for things currently free. I've been saying this for a while: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47534499
Distributing across different services wouldn't be a bad idea.... I still can't help but feel a little grateful for what they do across the free side of things. I know it isn't altruism, and I know nobody needs to defend a billion dollar corporation but... Name another service that does what they do for FREE (and no ads) at this scale. It isn't easy. Wikipedia has probably more usage, but is a simpler endeavor. (exce…
My only push back would be on the FREE part. I coulda bought that 5 years ago. Now I look at GitHub and go, "if the product is free, it's because Im the product" with all their co-pilot stuff.
Everyone suggesting that they simply charge users for commits to drive off AI-heavy users forgets that Github is owned by Microsoft, who has a big incentive to keep having developers use AI. I suspect that Microsoft would even prefer to have Github operate at a loss, if that loss were because all its users were using their models and paying for OpenAI subscriptions to generate the code.
This is like letting someone stay in your house for free while charging them to burn it down.
"Since April, monthly commits have grown from 1.4 billion to 2.9 billion. " Wow, that is some incredible growth in a really short time.
So much more stuff and growing- what it is actually useful for ? Are we getting actually more done than with previous volumes or is it just all wasted energy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wow. they should really institute a maximum amount of individual pushes per-month per-user.
That would just drive users into the arms of the alternatives, which would love to own the world's code... like Cursor/Musk. Microsoft and GitHub's only option is to suck it up, absorb this growth, and lower failure rates. They have the money, so that's not the issue. As someone on the sidelines, this is really interesting to watch unfold.
Sorry to suggest this but if they charged everyone say $1/mo. it would absolutely help the massive surge from AI coding they seem to have had. I don't like paying for free stuff but gh certainly worth it.
You are always paying one way or another, I prefer to pay in dollars and not frustration, attention, or privacy.
"Since April, monthly commits have grown from 1.4 billion to 2.9 billion. " Wow, that is some incredible growth in a really short time.
So much more stuff and growing- what it is actually useful for ? Are we getting actually more done than with previous volumes or is it just all wasted energy?