8 ms·

Ethically Microsoft has about as much claim to be able to use the data for co-pilot as anyone else. On the other hand, maybe a MSFT v Amazon lawsuit over this

by xmodem 2y ago

Ethically Microsoft has about as much claim to be able to use the data for co-pilot as anyone else. On the other hand, maybe a MSFT v Amazon lawsuit over this could be the wake up call the world needs that maybe we should stop centralising critical infrastructure in the hands of a single company. Which is why I think they wouldn't do it - at most I could see Microsoft tightening request limits on accounts associated with Amazon.

cyanydeez 2y ago
Well do.that right when distributed computing finds a workable modrl
- xmodem 2y ago
  Yeah, I guess building a distributed version control system is basically an intractable problem.
  - amadeuspagel 2y ago
    GitHub offers more then version control. A decentralized version is about as realistic as a decentralized facebook.
    - xmodem 2y ago
      Of course - I was being facetious. But I disagree with your assessment of how realistic it is. We already have it on a small scale today in the form of some projects using their own gitlab/gitea instances. If Github were to enshitify I expect we would see a push for this from a lot more communities. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to design a system that keeps, for instance, issue, wiki, and PR metadata in git alongside code. This could then support simple import/export between instances. You could also support cross-instance forking and PR's. The biggest problems I think you would still have are 1. third-party integrations and 2. abuse/spam prevention. Having been the system-owner for GitHub at a large engineering org before, I can say that for us, switching away would have been virtually impossible because of all the integrations we would have to replace. But, this is a consequence of the centre of gravity being Github currently and not an immutable law of nature. As for 2, well I expect that'll remain one of the hard unsolved problems of computer science for the time being.
      - yodon 2y ago
        >I was being facetious You may want to re-read Poe's Law[0]. Poe's law technically refers to Sarcasm but tends to cover Facetious comments as well. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
    - fire_lake 2y ago
      The GitHub user-base cares more about decentralization than the Facebook user-base. Maybe there is hope.
      - cyanydeez 2y ago
        Right but the past decade has shown distributed models are incompatible with public discovery and use.
        skeledrew 2y ago
        There are solutions out there though. Mostly it's a lack of - financial - incentive to standardize and iterate on them IMO. But GitLab at least is currently working on adding ActivityPub support.
drewcoo 2y ago
> maybe we should stop centralising critical infrastructure in the hands of a single company Managing your own on-prem or in-colo infrastructure sucks: it's expensive and a source of risk, which is why we moved things like source servers to a centralized model.

by xmodem 2y ago

cyanydeez 2y ago

Well do.that right when distributed computing finds a workable modrl

xmodem 2y ago
Yeah, I guess building a distributed version control system is basically an intractable problem.
- amadeuspagel 2y ago
  GitHub offers more then version control. A decentralized version is about as realistic as a decentralized facebook.
  - xmodem 2y ago
    Of course - I was being facetious. But I disagree with your assessment of how realistic it is. We already have it on a small scale today in the form of some projects using their own gitlab/gitea instances. If Github were to enshitify I expect we would see a push for this from a lot more communities. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to design a system that keeps, for instance, issue, wiki, and PR metadata in git alongside code. This could then support simple import/export between instances. You could also support cross-instance forking and PR's. The biggest problems I think you would still have are 1. third-party integrations and 2. abuse/spam prevention. Having been the system-owner for GitHub at a large engineering org before, I can say that for us, switching away would have been virtually impossible because of all the integrations we would have to replace. But, this is a consequence of the centre of gravity being Github currently and not an immutable law of nature. As for 2, well I expect that'll remain one of the hard unsolved problems of computer science for the time being.
    - yodon 2y ago
      >I was being facetious You may want to re-read Poe's Law[0]. Poe's law technically refers to Sarcasm but tends to cover Facetious comments as well. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
  - fire_lake 2y ago
    The GitHub user-base cares more about decentralization than the Facebook user-base. Maybe there is hope.
    - cyanydeez 2y ago
      Right but the past decade has shown distributed models are incompatible with public discovery and use.
      - skeledrew 2y ago
        There are solutions out there though. Mostly it's a lack of - financial - incentive to standardize and iterate on them IMO. But GitLab at least is currently working on adding ActivityPub support.

drewcoo 2y ago

> maybe we should stop centralising critical infrastructure in the hands of a single company Managing your own on-prem or in-colo infrastructure sucks: it's expensive and a source of risk, which is why we moved things like source servers to a centralized model.