When I searched for text “github” I did not find anything. But searching in the inspector to cover urls:
Firefox and related code is stored in our git repository.
Which makes it all the more confusing. Stored there, but patches only elsewhere?
Really, for a “moved their sources” claim I’d prefer some form of announcement or docs that describe this.
These changes will apply to operations like cloning repositories over HTTPS, anonymously interacting with our REST APIs, and downloading files from raw.githubusercontent.com.
That’s a read-only mirror, not a “move onto GitHub”.
PRs get automatically closed, referring to the contrib docs.
Lenard Flören, a Germany-based art director at an advertising agency, said he quickly realized that trying to create his dream fitness app with one lengthy prompt would lead to a plethora of bugs that “neither ChatGPT nor my clueless self had any chance of solving.”
If everyone can create programs, and everyone fails, maybe it’ll bring increased appreciation to development and good development and products? One could hope. I guess the worst offenders won’t even try themselves either way. The services are not that accessible.
I’ve aired my frustration about the terminology previously; anyway, I’m trying to accept the terminology in the interpretation it could make some sense:
You tell the AI the “vibe” of what you want the result to have, and it does that - but of course it’s not necessarily that simple. You may end up doing prompt engineering, multiple iterations, trial and error, etc
When we tried a product at my workplace generating a web app prototype in react seemed viable and reasonable, possibly good for prototyping and demonstrating. We also tried a Blazor app, and it utterly failed. I suspect because of less training on it and much more complex mixture of technologies.
, but it works reliably well. It takes a second or two to be redirected to the site you’re visiting.
Do you mean it works reliably well in letting users through, or in blocking AI?
Do you have sources or more information about the effectiveness of it in blocking AI? What else it blocks as collateral damage would also be interesting.
/edit: Clicking through some links (specifically canine.tools) I have to say - it may also be effective in annoying me personally, and eventually exiting those websites. Similar to consent dialogs you could go into settings for and save with opt-outs. But it’s a barrier and user-opposing functionality.
I certainly don’t see it as a simply or only good and effective thing.
It doesn’t open with a summary or overview but dives right in to exploration, but I think the point comes across:
The copy and paste key codes, which have no physical keys anymore, are - to a degree - supported in software. Their claim is that those key codes are the tool for universal copy and paste, and then it’s the input interpretations job (key and combination mapping) to offer bindings to those key codes.
GTK added support the copy and paste keyboards in January 2025. QT also added support for copy and paste key codes the same month. I’m not sure of the first released version of the GTK toolkit that will contain the fix. For QT, it will be QT 6.10, scheduled for release in September 2025. Together, this will cover many apps built for Gnome and KDE as well as others that use the same toolkits.
… followed by some more “current state of support for those key codes”.
The HackerOne report that does not even apply has 44 upvotes.
What do upvotes mean on HackerOne?
I guess, at least here, they’re mindless “looks interesting” or “looks well worded” or something?
The license doesn’t get revoked. It does not apply to things it does not allow in the first place.
Some kind of restrictions are easier to describe and assess than others.
I doubt someone that generates AI slob reports would care about the restrictions anyway.
3 hours, no chapters? :(
When you’re working for Heinz, is it a mustard bottle?
At my work we explored a low-code platform. It was not low on code at all. Beyond the simplest demos you had to code everything in javascript, but in a convoluted, intransparend, undocumented environment with a horrendous editing UI. Of course their marketing was something different than that.
That was not the early days of low-code mind you. It was rather recently; maybe three or four years ago.
I expect an update on 999
I’d love to read a list of those instances/claims/tech
I imagine one of them was low-code/no-code?
/edit: I see such a list is what the posted link is about.
I’m surprised there’s not low-code/no-code in that list.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Are you saying Google paid for them to stop implementing pwa?
Start as in developing or as in hosting?
You’re asking in a community called devs, implying you want to develop, but it seems like you want to only host?
I looked at Wikipedia; Taler then Blind signature, then looked for docs on GNU Taler where I didn’t immediately find any technical overview of how that works. Phind gave me a seemingly reasonable and understandable answer. (Surely sourced from somewhere.)
When we multiply the original message by rere, sign it, and then multiply by r−1r−1, the blinding factors cancel out while preserving the signature.
The success of this process relies on two critical properties:
- The blinding factor must be relatively prime to N
- The RSA keypair must satisfy the congruence relation red≡r(modN)red≡r(modN)
The magic is that you can
and the signature remains valid.
It does sound like magic. But isn’t most of cryptography like that?
There’s a python example in there as well, with such a calculation. I didn’t go through it though.
I just wanted to add an additional resource related to the topic.
The how to submit a patch section documents that that’s where they accept patches. And they do their reviews and change iterations there. By necessity, that also means hosting/having the repos.
That’s confusing to me.
They only accept patches on Phabricator, have the sources there, but suggest using GitHub, but afterwards Phabricator to submit the changes?
I can only imagine it’s to lower barrier to entry because GitHub is more well known. But this just seems like a confusing mess to me, without clear wording of intentions and separation of concerns [in their docs, not your post or comment here].