41–50 of 697 posts
"It's their fault, they only showed 5 warning banners. A 6th one would have totally stopped me from doing this." If a "type your repository name to confirm" box still doesn't make you double check that you picked the right repository, what else can they even do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the repo goes private, people who can’t see it any more can’t have it in their list of starred repos.
So mark the repo as private without their permission to view and have queries for starred repositories ignore repositories you can't view - that's an extremely frequent approach to take with complex permission and social functions. I completely understand that not everyone has time to build everything and software is an evolving process - but soft deletion for social links is my default state of mind (then you overla…
From a data complexity standpoint, it sounds like they decided they didn’t want to have to make calls to the authorization layer when parsing a user’s stars. The downside is the behavior seen when a repo goes private, but my bet is that repositories being made private is far less frequent than calls to get a list of starred repos.
That's crazy that a manual error by someone, for whatever reason, end up being an article blaming Github for all sort of reasons. And never accepting that the thing that really failed here is the user who performed the action.
I have no dog in the fight here, and no affiliation to HTTPie, but this definitely seems like a Github issue to me. You can't just give users ways to easily and accidentally shoot themselves in the foot, and then blame the user for shooting themselves in the foot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no dog in the fight here, and no affiliation to HTTPie, but this definitely seems like a Github issue to me. You can't just give users ways to easily and accidentally shoot themselves in the foot, and then blame the user for shooting themselves in the foot.
Who got shot in the foot here? The article keeps talking about killing 55 thousand people. I’m trying to grok why “unstarring the repo” is such an earthshattering thing. It’s annoying if you wanted it starred / wanted notifications, because you have to notice and redo it… but there’s no irreparable harm, no data loss. This reads like somebody was placing way too much personal mental value on “the repo for my project…
Your comment reads like you don't understand how a community works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may be the most hilarious misuse of “gaslight” that I’ve ever seen. If I publish something and you save the link and then I decide “nah, I don’t want that to be published”, I haven’t gaslit you.
I think you misunderstood. If you remove the content, that's fine. If you make the link itself disappear from where I saved it, that's gaslighting.
https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2020/10/26/num/ makes a similar point. I don't remember us saying people only have themselves to blame when that article was posted ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24904204 ). Not sure why we're doing it on this post, which makes a number of completely reasonable and specific suggestions for improvement.
"Type a specific thing to confirm" (as suggested by the post you linked) is exactly what Github does for destructive actions. And the author still messed it up because they were on "autopilot". At that point the suggestions go beyond being reasonable.
The OP's main suggestion is along exactly those lines. It's actually less extreme, in some ways (see OP's "Lesson 1").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who got shot in the foot here? The article keeps talking about killing 55 thousand people. I’m trying to grok why “unstarring the repo” is such an earthshattering thing. It’s annoying if you wanted it starred / wanted notifications, because you have to notice and redo it… but there’s no irreparable harm, no data loss. This reads like somebody was placing way too much personal mental value on “the repo for my project…
Have you been living under a rock? Everyone judges repos by their amount of stars. Why do you think every social media network has the concept of likes?
I've had a very different experience around stars - they're just a bit of fluff and pretty unimportant compared to watches.
https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2020/10/26/num/ makes a similar point. I don't remember us saying people only have themselves to blame when that article was posted ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24904204 ). Not sure why we're doing it on this post, which makes a number of completely reasonable and specific suggestions for improvement.
"Type a specific thing to confirm" (as suggested by the post you linked) is exactly what Github does for destructive actions. And the author still messed it up because they were on "autopilot". At that point the suggestions go beyond being reasonable.
> What put me on the wrong path was an otherwise completely unrelated action: I had just done the same (i.e., hidden an empty README) on my personal profile by making jakubroztocil/jakubroztocil private.
> GitHub’s conceptual model treats users and organizations as very similar entities when it comes to profiles and repos. In this context, and since I just wanted to repeat the same benign action on our organization’s profile, my brain switched to auto-pilot mode.
> I didn’t realize at the moment there’s an inconsistency in the naming of this special repo containing profile READMEs and that it differs for users and organizations: name/name vs. name/.github.
> That’s why I proceeded to make httpie/httpie private instead of httpie/.github without realizing my mistake.
It does strike me as unfair that GitHub themselves made the exact same mistake but were able to fix it with database backups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or even make it so that those starrings that no longer have permissions to view the starred item just effectively don't exist because of data rules.
That's bad because it lies to users and you can't remove the star when it's in that state.