Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did train it on copyrighted work. The GPL is a license for copyrighted work. If it wasn't copyrighted, a license would be useless. The code being covered by copyright and the code being publicly accessible are two different things.
you know what i mean... i am talking about training it on windows OS code and adobe photoshop source code and other "proprietary software" code
GitHub-Next
71–80 of 119 posts
Re: GitHub-Next
#72> GitHub Next investigates the future of software development. Yesterday I tried to use Datadog's Github integration for stacktraces and it asked me for "access Github on my behalf". It's been the same since the beginning of Github - they leave integrators with no better options, and users with an ambiguous UI dialog / docs that downplay the scope being granted. Sooooo maybe fix your own stuff before making such gran…
Why wouldn't this be done over git? It seems almost ridiculous for this to be a GitHub-specific API and authentication mechanism instead of merely authorizing an SSH key from Datadog (which would then allow whatever this service is doing with the source code to also work for any other source code hosting solution).
They also provide a direct git integration, which as far as I can tell just is a reduced version of the GitHub one, with a featureset that seems reasonable if they only have the pure git data.
Re: GitHub-Next
#73Did GitHub ever respond to the concerns about CoPilot? Specifically whether they trained it on private repos or GPL?
copilot is just a prototype. imagine in 10-20 years, software engineers as we know it will be obsolete.
Re: GitHub-Next
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not that you’re allowed to omit the head element (you’re not, and you can’t), but that its start and end tags are optional. Same with the html and body elements. (These remarks apply to HTML syntax only; in XML syntax, which is certainly still a thing, you can (if you care not for validity) omit whatever elements you choose to, only needing some root element.) As far as sources are concerned, the HTML spec is ma…
convo was about HTML 5 specifically (the W3C version). I've never heard HTML WHATWG called HTML 5.
Directly from the specification:
> 1.2 Is this HTML5?
> In short: Yes.
— https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/introduction.html#is-...?
Re: GitHub-Next
#75Is this essentially a rebranding of what was GitHub OCTO (Office of the CTO, I believe?)
> We moved to https://github.com/githubnext!
https://github.com/githubocto/flat still using old name
Re: GitHub-Next
#76Does githubnext.com read as a phishing-adjacent third party to anyone else? Why not deploy as next.github.com subdomain?
Also, various boring realities around SSL termination made deployment difficult in a github.com domain. This was the expedient solution. Not phishing!
Re: GitHub-Next
#77Re: GitHub-Next
#78Re: GitHub-Next
#79Is this essentially a rebranding of what was GitHub OCTO (Office of the CTO, I believe?)
Re: GitHub-Next
#80Could they use the blurb of text at the top to give me like... a noun to describe what this is? It just says some vagueness about the future and investigating and exploring. Is it a conference? A team? An initiative? How does it work? Whatever this is supposed to be selling me on, they're doing a terrible job because I can't figure out what it is!
It's an old trick first called out in The Dilbert Principle that you get promoted by being associated with sexy sounding projects, the best case is a sexy sounding project that has vague objectives.
Given the blurb above it sounds like there is very little substance to this and lots of style. Expect it to be sunset or fade into obscurity in 3-5 years.
EDIT: For context their stated mission is > GitHub Next investigates the future of software development. We explore things beyond the adjacent possible. Tools and technologies that will change our craft. New approaches to building healthy, productive software engineering teams.
Notice the lack of anything that will actually be produced, key words that you are dealing with BS is "explore", "approaches", and "change our craft" without any details on what any of that means. If they were producing or doing something they'd say that. As is it's meaningless marketing drivel that could translate better as "We've made up a fake job to play with cool tech, write ill-informed meaningless blog posts about what the next cool thing everyone should do is. We're also light on technical skills so we are going to focus on teams and projects not actual tech"
I don't begrudge them the fact they weaseled their way into this job good for them, but I don't expect much, and If I am wrong and these are actually super smart talented individuals that finally got the freedom to make something happen then I apologize for my dismissiveness. That being said when companies get acquired by MS they don't tend to be known for their innovation and ground breaking research going forward.