MoonRay GitHub Source Repository, Apache 2 license
I hope Microsoft leaves GitHub alone
I see no way of that happening. GitHub is a huge resource for Microsoft; in terms of market penetration, people platform, but especially now with GitHub Copilot and their push for AI. They can't let go of GitHub.
Are there docs / an overview of what it does and how?
I remember Google marks their generated videos in some way. Is this based on similar or same published papers and approaches?
Before publishing, that text really needed a self-review/read-through. So many obvious issues to spot. Numerous typos like 'techjnical ', issues like double words 'missing missing', and so on.
Unfortunate, that they didn't include Edge in the Browser feature coverage comparison list.
True, and I think he makes it very clear that that's the case. I still found it informative. The whole thing speaks a lot more about the surrounding things. Mythos is just the intro.
Maybe a Colmi smart ring, versions ranging from 13 to 30 €?
I got a Colmi Smartwatch for 13 €. It doesn't integrate into the standard Android Health thing but seemingly uses its own protocol or sth.
March 30, 2026 @ 10:45 AM EST: Martin Woodward, Vice President of Developer Relations at GitHub, confimed that Copilot was injecting product tips into pull requests but that the feature has been disabled following feedback.
They posted an update to the article about this recent update. After feedback, they decided to disable this feature.
That's a read-only mirror, not a "move onto GitHub".
PRs get automatically closed, referring to the contrib docs.
DuckDuckGo
Turned into a skeleton in 10 minutes

I would rather not have my 20-60 work commits, possibly shifting solution design twice or three times, in the main project history, spanning days and sometimes weeks, invalidating earlier commits, and a hassle if not impossible to reasonably and efficiently document changes between them. And all those changes intertwined with my other work and my colleagues' changes.
I really don't get how "develop in feature-flagged trunk" is supposed to come together with "single dev single changeset". Work evolves. Design evolves. Surely, multiple/many "single changesets" must come together to form new features and changes? This claim seems to assume issues are found before it's being changed again, and in a timely manner, even when it is behind a feature flag?
Were pull requests really "created for FOSS"? I feel like, maybe assume, pre-merge reviews have been a thing before that [and unrelated to PRs].
I feel like the article could have been structured a lot better, and made its point without a "it's like this" "but maybe not" digression. Feels like inflammatory bait into relativation. I guess I'll refrain from raising my other points and disagreements that I noted because by the end of the article, it wasn't really claiming it broadly anymore anyway.
Outside of the irritation, I found the arguments interesting. I'll keep it in mind, but I don't see my team implementing it like that or to a higher degree. For various reasons.
Despite the negative vote sum, I think it's an interesting alternative perspective. Even if I found it irritating to read, and even if people hate it, it's a good discussion in the comments. About how we work.