101–110 of 246 posts
What if we get proven code some other way?
Give our tools for free to prove their worth
No one will guess this is astroturf
A special program, with a special account
To get labeled data worth a big amount
At first I thought people here were being pretty unsympathetic to an early version of a beneficial program. I could see a company setting a 6-month timeline initially, so they can reevaluate the program and choose how to evolve their support for open source. I expected to see something along the lines of, "at the end of the 6 months we'll evaluate whether to continue your free plan." But no, they're quite explicit ab…
This does not strike me as an anti-pattern or ugly. Indefinite free period would be unreasonable, and automatically kicking a user off would also probably be bad. A $200 bill shock is not great but it's also at a size that won't cause enormous distress while simultaneously being noticeable enough that you won't pay more than a month over. (As an open-source maintainer already on a Max plan, I still wince every month.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are right. I'll edit my comment to point to this.
Even if they did let the free users continue using, and then preesnted them with invoices, those would mean nothing without a registered, up-to-date payment method on file. I mean, pay this invoice ... or else what?
Or else they send it to collections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This does not strike me as an anti-pattern or ugly. Indefinite free period would be unreasonable, and automatically kicking a user off would also probably be bad. A $200 bill shock is not great but it's also at a size that won't cause enormous distress while simultaneously being noticeable enough that you won't pay more than a month over. (As an open-source maintainer already on a Max plan, I still wince every month.…
[flagged]
I have had subscriptions renewed unwillingly and it was always clear to me that, as much as I disliked this practice, the expense was always my fault.
5000 stars. That's an interesting threshold. I've checked and astropy -- the main python module used by pretty much every python user in astrophysics has 5100 stars. I would guess almost no open source code in science would pass the threshold. EDIT: Just another test, one of the most used codes in astro -- an ensemble Markov-Chain Monte-Carlo sampler https://github.com/dfm/emcee has 1600 stars. It just shows the 5000…
And completely excludes projects not hosted on Microsoft's GitHub or NPM (Though they do say you can contact them if you don't meet their insane criteria).
Considering they trained their model on open-source software, the least they could do is give it to open-source maintainers for free with no time limit. I’m sure they can come up with other ways to prevent abuse. This 6-months-free move just adds insult to injury, like it’s just a move to extract more from those who involuntarily contributed to the training already. And that’s coming from me, a Claude Code fan.
Why? The resulting code generated by Claude is unfit for training, so any work product produced after the start of the subsidized program should be ignored.
Therefore it makes sense to charge them for the service after 6 months, no? Heh.
"free as in cocaine", for 6 months.
> Maintainers: You’re a primary maintainer or core team member of a public repo with 5,000+ GitHub stars or 1M+ monthly NPM downloads. You've made commits, releases, or PR reviews within the last 3 months. How many total developers does that cover? 100? How many of them aren't already corporate employees? And also > 6 months of free Claude Max 20x So basically a free trial. When Github Copilot first launched they gav…
This is going to get abused so fast, it will make your head spin.
EDIT: I just look up the highest-ranking "buy GitHub stars" page (which I will obviously not link here), and it looks like you would have to pay a little over $1000 to get the required amount of stars. So I suppose it might not get abused as easily as I thought.
On the other hand, someone with the gumption and elbow grease to abuse this process themselves could still easily do so, I'd wager.
All that being said, I still think that GitHub stars are effectively worthless, and attempting to assign value to them like this is, at best, a fool's errand.
I can imagine this will invoke Goodhart's law, increasing the amount of people shilling their AI-generated shovelware onto a Web already greatly suffering from the consequences of the plummeting cost of intelligent-sounding text generation.