> "GitHub only gets better if people who give a shit stick around to make it better"

What's the mechanism of action here? What changes if I stay? What changes if I give more or less of a shit? Is there javascript telemetry feeding my shit into a dashboard with a calibrated shitometer for executives to consult when they set quarterly objectives? My account is six weeks younger than mitchellh's and I've been watching GitHub fall apart for the last year, what will happen because I stick around to watch for another year? Besides that I will get covered in shit.

You're an employee. What changes if you stick around? Back in October 2025, the GitHub CTO Federov prioritized moving to Azure above feature work (https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-to-a...). Yesterday he recommitted to it (https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/an-update-on-...), writing "We started executing our plan to increase GitHub’s capacity by 10X in October 2025 with a goal of substantially improving reliability and failover." GitHub has had six bad months of increasing bugs and sharply decreased uptime, and the CTO just recommitted to staying the course. You've explicitly been directed to move to Azure, not to give a shit or to make things better.

So I'll defer to your direct expertise. From the outside, Heroku stalled and died because Salesforce prioritized everything else in its business above Heroku. Are GitHub's priorities so different? Does you giving a shit make Azure and Copilot the best top priorities for GitHub? Will Azure and Copilot be why I stop seeing SPA jank? Will Azure and Copilot be why I can see my list of open PRs? Will Azure and Copilot be why I see something more than the 500 unicorn? Will Azure and Copilot stop the spam PRs that want to undermine the quality of my code? Will Azure and Copilot lead to anything other than the same corporate dismissal and dysfunction that led to Heroku? Will you giving a shit matter?

This is a little late for your nice jacket, but a lot of zipper damage comes from dirt getting into the teeth and then the zip grinds everything up. Outdoors shops sell a zipper lubricant to keep the dirt from sticking.

There's a lobbying group called 5rights that has designed and promoted the UK OSA, AU OSA, California KOSA, Federal KOSA, and more. This isn't some conspiracy. They take proudly take credit for these bills on their website, and in news coverage you'll see their same couple media personalities over and over: https://5rightsfoundation.com/our-work/

As usual for online censorship, Techdirt has had excellent coverage for years: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/baroness-beeban-kidron/

Rails's public release was July 2004: https://rubytalk.org/t/ann-rails-0-5-0-the-end-of-vaporware/...

Django's was July 2005: https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2005/jul/15/chipy/

Adding Simon Willison's announcement: https://simonwillison.net/2005/Jul/17/django/

TypeID is similar, though it uses the UUIDv7 directly: https://github.com/jetify-com/typeid Maybe the formalization would be interesting to you.

It doesn't have a checksum, though, that seems like an improvement that's worth a few bytes.

Thanks! I didn't know about TypeID (and I thought I'd searched thoroughly).

The formalization interests me. Shame they shifted the UUID 2 bits right. Otherwise our implementations would be almost compatible (only the last 2 bits of the 26th character + the last 3 characters would differ). In my next clean codebase, I may use TypeID and append a 15-bit checksum.

You did not share a link to a blog post. The title was "Effective Haskell is a hands-on practical book way to learn Haskell. No math or formal CS needed" and it linked to the site advertising your book for sale. I removed it because we don't get good discussions out of ads.

I shared the story as I remember it. Memory is imperfect. It's been years since I deleted my account, and I don't have the luxury of access to server or moderation logs.

What I do remember unambiguously is being an active member of the site, contributing regularly and in good faith, being accused of spamming, and the general feeling of hostility that I got from the site.

You got a DM and email with the title and URL when your story was removed. This would've been 2023-08-03 with the subject "Your story has been edited by a moderator", if you want to look back: https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/blob/86e1d0b6ac6bac5210...

But you're correct on the second part, there isn't a level of activity that entitles anyone to post a sales page with nothing to discuss on it. Your activity was taken into account, though. Typically if a new user's first activity is to post an ad I'll also ban the site or user. I understand the rules aren't as permissive as you wanted, but ads don't start good discussions.

Your post title doesn't sound like spam to me. Moreover, the link you originally shared https://pragprog.com/titles/rshaskell/effective-haskell/ looks informative enough for discussion; it links to PDFs of the actual content to read. HN, for example, didn't delete it when you posted it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36987260

IMO, the lobste.rs admin's assertion that the post had "nothing to discuss" is a misjudgment that undercuts the rest of their rationalization. My guess is that they're looking for a win on technicality, instead of addressing the myriad of concerns raised elsewhere in this thread.

The link was https://effective-haskell.com/

That website was actually https://web.archive.org/web/20230804152033/https://effective... back in 2023. Even less sale-sy than the HN link.

I don't think the technical win you want is possible or even worth it.

I don't know why you think I want a "technical win" from you, but I'm not seeking your approval. I corrected your mistake about the URL and the policy, like I corrected the author's mistake about what I removed. If you and other sites prefer different policies, it's no skin off my nose.

The vanity of internet moderators never cease to amaze me.

Left writes:

> The government’s position is that I should have known I couldn’t trade stocks I’d publicly praised—for some unspecified period of time. I didn’t lie, I simply traded too soon.

The criminal complaint is here, allegations begin on page 7: https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/andrew-le...

The part Left seems to be responding to in his article is:

> defendant LEFT often built his positions using inexpensive, short-dated options contracts that would expire within zero to five trading days and submitted limit orders to close his positions as soon as the Targeted Security reached a certain price.

The generic term for the government's allegations is not "the opposite of insider trading", it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump

A pump and dump has to be false, misleading or deceptive. This is not the case here.

Edit: I have now read some of the complaint. This is just sec fraud, which is consistent with what the article is claiming. "The opposite of insider trading" ie trading in the direction of the advice you're giving.

Gov says the statements were material, false, with intent. If they can't prove false to the level of being a material statement they will lose.

Edit2: This comes right up to the line, whether it's material to have false/non-statements about your intentions. There's another case that will come up if you research this about whether intentions are material.

There's a much higher-ROI way to encode these, write a test that checks the current date. Maybe a very large project would prefer not to fail everyone's build for it, but this is fine for a couple dozen developers.

Example: https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/commit/9e99fbf1d3cc441e...

There's a couple dozen at Midewin, too: https://www.fs.usda.gov/r09/midewin/animals-plants/bison-pro...

It must be part of a larger marketing push; their boss(?) appeared on the Odd Lots podcast a couple days ago to talk about this work: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/scott-kupors-new-plan-... He spent a lot of time promoting this new National Design Studio's attempt to attract tech works for 2-year commitments to drop into existing orgs, which is basically how the 18F PIF program worked before it was dissolved earlier this year. Perhaps abruptly terminating a program to reinvent it from scratch six months later is very efficient.

18F: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18F Overview of the related programs: https://willslack.com/pif-18f-usds/

(A warning about Odd Lots: the hosts never question or push back on people talking their book. This especially bad with politicians and political appointees, who are often very creative during their interviews.)