51–60 of 124 posts
Does GitHub use code from private repos for AI training?
"Human Eyes will never see the contents of your private repositories" I think that's pretty clear then.
Why does he keep calling GitHub a "forge"? Is calling a code repository a "forge" something common that I just haven't run across before?
The term "forge", when applied to something other than metalworking, still implies a place where things are made, molded, or altered. It doesn't seem fitting for a place where you store your source code and make it available for download.
Note that you can do this for more online services; you can have GitHub, GitLab, SourceHut and other sites all as mirrors for your self-hosted repositories. It's the best of all worlds in my opinion, and enlarges your pool of potential contributors.
Of course, you have to avoid vendor lock-in that can happen if you rely too much on other services that GitHub provides, like the issue tracker, wiki, CI and so on.
[flagged]
More like they think they have words that others might like to hear -- and they're often correct.
> As a GitHub user, I was always seeking green squares to try to make sure I had activity every day. I have never paid any attention to that at all. It surprises me that some do. Do you think it's common?
Why does he keep calling GitHub a "forge"? Is calling a code repository a "forge" something common that I just haven't run across before?
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forge_(software): “In FOSS development communities, a forge is a web-based collaborative software platform for both developing and sharing computer applications. The term forge refers to a common prefix or suffix adopted by various platforms created after the example of SourceForge. This usage of the word stems from the metalworking forge, used for shaping metal parts.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think it's common? Yes. I see it more and more these days, especially among recruiters and HR departments. I believe there's an inverse correlation between the value one places on green squares and their understanding of what it actually takes to build software... https://eddiots.com/931 https://eddiots.com/447 https://eddiots.com/2461 https://eddiots.com/2390
At one point, you could backdate commits and push them to GitHub to make art with the red/green squares. I don't know if that still works, but recruiters generally won't be able to tell whether you're faking commit activity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could say the same thing about comments and yet you still decided to post one.
yes that was the point of the comment. or did you miss that?
and if you had mentioned it, my response would have been: "so why did you bother to comment?"
> As a GitHub user, I was always seeking green squares to try to make sure I had activity every day. This led me to change my workflow to generate more green squares, not for whatever is maximally effective. Having visible stars and followers also turns it into a sort of popularity contest. There's a dopamine hit when you get one of those, so it creates a strong reward function for attention-seeking behavior. > Anoth…
Yerwhat? This is not remotely my experience with GitHub at all. I never look at my green squares. In fact I rarely even look at anyone's profile page (why would I?)
I use GitHub every day and it has never once occurred to me that anyone could think of GitHub as addictive/gamified or a "dopamine dispenser".
> As a GitHub user, I was always seeking green squares to try to make sure I had activity every day. I have never paid any attention to that at all. It surprises me that some do. Do you think it's common?
Do you think it's common? Yes. I see it more and more these days, especially among recruiters and HR departments. I believe there's an inverse correlation between the value one places on green squares and their understanding of what it actually takes to build software... https://eddiots.com/931 https://eddiots.com/447 https://eddiots.com/2461 https://eddiots.com/2390
On the other hand I recently encountered a very interesting hiring process. I think this is the first time in 20 years when I'm encountering some "new idea in recruitment" and I actually think it's good for everyone.
I'm talking about coding/other task based challenges you complete on your own. I recently got something like this sent by a recruiter. (2 coding challenges, one - writing a email to a junior colleague telling them how to troubleshoot an imaginary backend issue). I was very pleasantly surprised that web based system had over 20 languages you could choose from to complete the challenges and once I've completed it around midnight my time, by 7am it was already scored (by humans and pretty well).
I much prefer this kind of stuff to traditional "share your screen via video all and code live" or pre-covid, write your code with a pen on a whiteboard...
As for cheating possibility... They openly allow one to use Google etc, but there is barely enough time to complete the task, so someone extensively searching on Google, or trying to use chatgpt for the task would run out of time tweaking the prompt very quickly.