It depends on what your goal is in talking to the council.
Here, the goal was media attention.
If you want the council to actually engage with your comment - because it’s reasonable and not insane - then wearing an outfit probably will not help. Though I’m all for more Lord Bucketheads in politics.
I hear the complaint reversed far more often. The standard complaint is that city councils weight complaints from normal people far too highly. Only a small unrepresentative subset of a city's population will show up to council meetings to lodge a complaint, so that small subset is massively over-represented in council decisions.
City council listens to old residents with too much free time when they argue against an outcome you want. City councils ignore residents when they argue for an outcome you want. Such is the internet view on city councils.
> The standard complaint is that city councils weight complaints from normal people far too highly.
In most cases, what happens is they give a lot of weight to input from those who agree with the predestined outcome, and none to those who differ.
In these city meetings, all the decisions have been made behind closed door already (often with substantial greasing of the wheels), the open hearing are just for show.
My understanding is most of these local government "public comment" sessions are only done because they have to, and they'd much rather not, and stay as insulated from the commoners as they can. They certainly don't listen to or act on anything the public has to say, whether or not dressed up in costume.
Not that impressive when you realize it's mostly due to AI slop
edit: AI actually writes 99.9% of my code these days. I'm just saying of course the number of commits to github is going to climb astronomically due to AI.
Agree - this reminds me very much of the old joke of two economists increasing GDP by taking turns giving the same 200usd back and forth for having each other eat shit.
Useful / impressive for whom is the question.
Not for us!
We pay for Github enterprise, and because GH can't be bothered to separate service tiers for sloplords and actual paying customers we get garbage level performance. They could of course always implement usage limits, but the goal is not to earn money, or provide a good service, the goal is to maximize AI users. Would be very awkward at the next executive golf meetup if you couldn't point to increased AI adoption.
In short: This is why monopoly laws matter. Once a company becomes too large, normal business rationales cease to be the motivation for their actions, and GH can go along with the pied piper of AI psychotic C-suite officers like MS is doing instead.
Impressive for whom? It's impressive for the service to have such growth at that scale, the code being slop is somewhat irrelevant. Your comment just seems like mood affiliation (AI should be dismissed, growth was from AI, therefore growth should be dismissed).
Is it impressive? All it's doing is decaying the services. 15 years ago never have imagined I would go to the lengths to host a github alternative on a VPS but after doing just this (also being the last one in the my professional group to do so), GitHub is giving a master class in destroying their reputation in pursuit of advocating for hostile entities.
Not all growth is good, especially growth that is actively hurting the company.
There is an equilibrium in both nature and software. Purposely designing systems that mimic the effects of cancer is going to benefit who exactly?
This growth is surely good for github. If another company becomes the "github for AI agents", they'll lose not just their business for AI but also human coders. (Sure, maybe there will be a human coder only github, but it will be quite small.)
LLM companies are already wildly unprofitable. Who ever wants to do this can be my guest, but please let's tax them enough so that we can get something positive out of the stupidity like free public school lunches for children or universal childcare.
How is it impressive if we all know it's autogenerated? There's no more people there than there were before. Heck, at ~2x growth that's possibly a decrease in real humans there since bots generate loads of them per person
That's not how I read the statement "It's impressive for the service to have such growth at that scale" that this was a reply to. They do seem to think the growth is impressive, not the absolute quantity, about which I agree with you
Yeah, seems like AI slop is going to kill GitHub's free tier. I just don't see how the economics of having to host this much slop and provide service to slopcoders is going to convert into dollars for them otherwise. None of the humans involved are going to end up in big enterprises. It's all cost, with no pathway to revenue.
When I first heard about pi.dev I was also initially confused.
Raspberry Pi is already very big in the hacker community... they really should not have named this harness "Pi".
reply