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".
You linked a tutorial to sh. Note that nobody ends up shell scripting in sh. People will use bash, which is an alternative shell and shell language, and almost universally available where sh is available. sh is very old and limited. bash is much more common.
There's many other kinds of shells as well though. And you such an automation task you could use any number of scripting languages. The part that makes it a shell, which is interactive use, is not necessary for a scripting task like this of automating an operation. Shell languages can be used as scripting languages too though. I just want to point out alternatives and context.
Personally, I use Nushell as my daily shell and for scripts and am very satisfied with it. It's not universally available as in pre-installed, but is multi-platform and easy to install through an exe or package. Because it's a newer project, there's not that many resources yet, and still occasionally makes changes to its language with new releases. But, for me, the upsides to other shells are obvious and significant. I posted my Nushell solution in a separate comment (separating concise solution from this general prose exploration).
My preferred shell is Nushell. I would write:
glob **/*.mp3 | wrap mp3 | insert txt { $in.mp3 | path parse | update extension 'txt' | path join } | each { ^mp3splt -A $in.txt $in.mp3 }
or with line breaks for readability
glob **/*.mp3
| wrap mp3
| insert txt { $in.mp3 | path parse | update extension 'txt' | path join }
| each { ^mp3splt -A $in.txt $in.mp3 }
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 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].