link-

@ghoniemcodes Gratitude is always welcome but not required, all parties are benefiting from the platform being the way it is

@BassemDy people are not being grateful enough for github handling the sheer amount of code being pushed every second due to the advance of AI

The usage we’re seeing is unprecedented, the scale is unprecedented, and the resource crunch is real and not just in engineering talent. Insane amount of work is going towards stabilising and securing the platform. Actions for example isn’t only handling the growth of CI use, it’s also the platform for all agentic workloads. The strain on our dependencies is real. It’s a multi-dimensional whammy that no one saw coming at this speed and scale. We’re working hard on it :) In Actions we also spent a couple of years investing in a major replatforming work to help us get to 10x scale. We hit 100x that scale in the same period. We have to cope with the growth, defend from abuse, fight the malicious actors, build new features, and keep everyone sane. Everyone and everything is firing on all cylinders!

People who can simplify complicated concepts so that laymen can understand them, are not the same people as those who can only reason about simple concepts. At the surface level the output might look identical, but that output was not fabricated by similar machines 😄 The internet hides the machines well

The one man leading the resistance 🫡

@MegaBasedChad Fake news

GitHub developers don't even do post mortems for the outages anymore, they just look at you like this

It’s the brain rot of educational systems. “Everything must have a single correct answer, quickly figuring out the correct answer equals superior intelligence.” This mental programming is obviously ridiculous, and not practical. Some spend an entire lifetime stuck in this way of reasoning. The internet just amplifies this.

Its crazy how many people think slowly changing your mind and testing your theories is bad or makes you dumb.

@serengil @sspaeti @CommonSenseMars @github I think the issue is resolved now, you’ll receive communication about this shortly

@sspaeti @CommonSenseMars @github @BassemDy I'm having exactly same problem with Simon. I appreciate if you can help me, too. My github has been inaccessible for 6 days, and community cannot use my open source projects.

My GitHub user got flagged without any notification and is now unavailable to the public, and I'm not sure what the issue is. I found out by accident, when a GH action did not run any longer.. Luckily, I can still push and see my repos. But anyone else can't, and gets a 404. Thank you, GitHub. I can't imagine doing anything differently or in violation of the guidelines. Has anyone had a similar experience? This is really frustrating and shows how dependent one is, and why I should be more self-hosting to be independent. Your account can be locked at any time without notice for no reason. What's the best way forward? Anyone using Codeberg, Tangled? I have my self-hosted Gitea, but I'm not sure if I want to move everything there 🤔? Moving makes even more sense when you consider they are training on my private repos and my data, including my book and others'.

@sspaeti Simon, I received word from the team that your account is reinstated. I don't have more details as to why your account was flagged. You can follow-up on that in the support ticket

@mehd_io @cassidoo let me check with the team

@BassemDy, @cassidoo do you know anyone who can help ? Simon is one of the biggest voices in data engineering writing. I've worked with him personally for years and I can't imagine this is warranted. Would be a shame to lose his work.

Sure.. becomes a shit economy, liquidity concentration in the AI bubble, and someone starting WW3 are all great for business

Noo…. who would have thought…

@ahmedelgabri @ahmdelemam Great writeup!

So I wrote about this pattern, which I have been using for years now. gabri.me/blog/git-workt…

I have been using git worktrees for years, before agentic coding became trendy. I have been getting many questions from friends and colleagues on how I work with them.

@wesbos I never thought we’d have to worry about scaling that damned contributions graph…

Bros GitHub contribution graph about to go neon green

@kitarp29 We listen and we do not judge 😏

AI.

@moaz_eldfrawy 😄 yeah I remember that one, it was pretty dumb..

@BassemDy me.pcmag.com/en/ai/31089/vi… At least it's not worse than this

@ahmdelemam 😂

So.. who's going to package @openclaw in a mac mini and sell it as the ultimate personal assistant product?

Clawdbot is fascinating! Took me a few hours to get it setup on an isolated VM on an untrusted VLAN, with a shared folder from my NAS for memory, all running in my small homelab. It even setup whisper to transcribe my voice notes and respond to my voice prompts! If this thing is capable of running Nvidia’s personaplex for full-duplex speed to speed conversations? Game over!

What my LLM says. Publication Assessment Journal: Frontiers in Nutrition • Impact Factor: ~4.0 (mid-tier) • Credibility: Mixed. Frontiers is a legitimate peer-reviewed publisher, but has faced criticism for sometimes lax review standards. It's on the "predatory-adjacent" watchlist for some academics, though not outright predatory. The journal is indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, which is a positive sign. • Open Access: Yes (author-pays model, which can incentivize volume over quality) Verdict: Acceptable but not top-tier. I'd trust it more than a no-name journal, less than JAMA/Lancet/NEJM. Author Assessment Authors: Junhui Jiang, Hu Zhao, Jiong Chen, Junhao Du, Weixiang Ni, Baohua Zheng, Junhong Wu, and Chunhong Xiao Affiliations: • Fuzong Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China • Department of General Surgery, The 900th Hospital of Joint Logistic Support Force, PLA, Fuzhou, China Assessment: • These are Chinese military/academic hospital researchers • No major red flags, but not internationally recognized names in nutrition or oncology • Corresponding author (Chunhong Xiao) uses a personal email domain — minor concern • Limited ability to verify their publication track record without database access Verdict: Credible academics, but not leading experts in the field. Study Design & Findings What they did: • Analyzed NHANES data (2007-2018) — 25,879 U.S. adults • Estimated dietary creatine intake from meat/fish consumption • Looked for association with self-reported cancer diagnosis Key Findings: • Each standard deviation increase in creatine intake → 5% lower cancer risk • Strongest effect in males (7% reduction) and overweight individuals (8% reduction) • Older adults (66-80) showed stronger protective association • Underweight individuals showed OPPOSITE effect — higher creatine = higher cancer risk Reliability Assessment Strengths: • Large sample size (25,879) • Used NHANES — a well-respected, nationally representative dataset • Adjusted for many confounders (smoking, alcohol, BMI, etc.) • Transparent methodology Weaknesses: 1. Cross-sectional, not causal — They can only show association, not that creatine prevents cancer 2. Self-reported cancer — Subject to recall bias 3. Creatine intake was estimated, not measured — they assumed 0.11g/oz for all meat 4. Reverse causation possible — Sick people may eat less meat 5. Confounding by healthy diet — People who eat more meat in "normal" amounts may have better overall diets 6. Effect size is tiny — 5% risk reduction is barely clinically meaningful 7. Underweight paradox — The opposite finding in underweight people suggests the relationship is complex/confounded Bottom Line Is this credible? Moderately. It's real research, properly conducted, but: • It's observational, not experimental • The effect is small • The journal is decent but not elite • Don't change your diet based on this alone What it actually shows: People who eat moderate amounts of meat may have slightly lower cancer prevalence. That's it. It doesn't prove creatine prevents cancer.

It just doesn't stop 😂