Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/03/pycon-github/

(I explicitly do not mean to raise a discussion of the context. It's just that the article does exactly what you are asking about, saying "It’s yet another way that GitHub is moving beyond software, helping to democratize the development of other stuff, including everything from laws and other legal documents to cartoons and even Wired articles.")



sort by: page size:


Actual technical content on github, which is linked from the article, but perhaps should be the main link?

https://github.com/zeffy/kb4012218-19

The article does at least do some digging vis-a-vis the history of Zeffy's work and how it came to reach the state that it's in currently, so some credit is due to computerworld.


They do actually have a link at the bottom, labelled github, outside the article for some reason.

>the information sharing site GitHub

I mean if that's what some legal news site calls it… :P


They're probably referring to a code-of-conduct document which has been attributed to GitHub, although I believe the document is (was?) actually maintained by the TODO Group, of which GitHub is a member.

https://todogroup.org/members/

Discussion of the code-of-conduct:

* https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github/issues/107#issuec...

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19162683


The article mentions the students using GitHub to evade censorship. I think that might refer to https://terminus2049.github.io/

Terminus ?????,?? GitHub ???????????,???????????????????????

Terminus is a site set up on GitHub's open platform to back up posts deleted from WeChat, Weibo and other platforms by means of decentralization.


There was a hackernnews article about a decentralised github (not yt-dl) yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874994

Dude, that's just the article, not the source. Eg: Github as CMS.


The main thread seems better:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19989684

This lacks additional content or context. It is simply the author promoting some 2016 letter/article criticising GitHub, and then very loosely tying it to recent changes. It is self-promoting blogspam.


If someone is curious as i was, here's a little bit more context:

Github Repo - https://github.com/pallene-lang/pallene

More about the language - https://github.com/pallene-lang/pallene/blob/master/doc/manu...


A very relevant and recent posting:

GitHub Copilot and open source laundering

https://drewdevault.com/2022/06/23/Copilot-GPL-washing.html

Previously on HN, in case you missed it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31848433



...I'm not seeing how this relates to GitHub. Did GitHub hire the authors of those articles..?

I linked to an archive of the GitHub issue in question and the reporter's own blog article about it. Are those not primary sources? And you've linked to Reddit?

I’m sincerely struggling to understand - what is changed by referring to Github as the subject of the second sentence, as opposed to leaving out Github in the version you proposed?

https://github.com/mpoon/gpt-repository-loader/pull/17/ If you look at this PR, he had ChatGPT write the tests for him.

He wrote the issue on https://github.com/mpoon/gpt-repository-loader/issues/16 and summarized https://github.com/mpoon/gpt-repository-loader/discussions/1...

"Open an issue describing the improvement to make Construct a prompt - start with using gpt_repository_loader.py on this repo to generate the repository context, then append the text of the opened issue after the --END-- line."

Feels like it needs to add a little Github client to be able to automatically append the text of issues at the end of the output. I'm sure ChatGPT can write a Github client in Python no problem.


Very well written blogpost, but it would be nice if they didn't downplay the severity of the original blog post:

A PoC of how you could clone private repositories, such as the github.com source code itself at github.com/github/github (as an assumed example)


Another typo: the link to the source is to "gethub.com/discourse". Funny thing is when I clicked it I assumed GitHub was having another outtage until I scanned the Url more closely.
next

Legal | privacy