I just cannot fathom the thinking behind presenting URLs but not linking to them. The author clearly knows something about all this (unless it's AI-written, but I don't think it is), so how have they made such a glaringly obvious mistake?

I'm half wondering if they're using a very strange CMS to publish this blog. The fact that they seemingly cannot use the correct double-quote character in their code blocks lends a bit of support to this theory.

> how HTML is only a markup language and not a programming language.

This sentence is a great example of why such a pointless debate continues. Don't disparage HTML as "only" a markup language; it's a markup language. That's no 'better' or 'worse' than a programming language, just different.

I just wish we could get these settings in nice plain text files so we can version control them and edit them easily.

TBF, there isn't a computer on earth that will solve that problem perfectly. At some point, "you shouldn't have so many utilities running" is perfectly acceptable advice.

No, because their icons can simply be collapsed into a disclosure control.

"You'll run out of memory eventually" was my point.

Yeah, "how much is 10% of your energy bill" would be a much more useful question!

about 10%!

Ironically, that's what probably killed Sourceforge and helped GitHub take off. It remains to be seen whether Codeberg will now repeat the process.

SF required application form, where you had to explain why you are worthy to have your git repo hosted by SF. By the time they processed it I already forgot I even applied. I think that was actual reason for them being destroyed by GitHub, that had simple, fully automated signup.

I think we'll see companies increasingly adopting the X approach: charged tiers for 'fewer' ads. With no actual guarantee as to the absolute quantity of ads, just 'fewer, relative to the people who aren't paying as much'. We're basically on a downward slope where not seeing ads is going to get steadily more and more expensive over time.

I mean, this is a very obvious future step. I was imagining this too, although I stopped short at the 'ads in comments' stage, but who knows, they could easily go further.

It's great that they backed down, but they still did it in the first place. GitHub is on borrowed time now; my own repos are insignificant, but I'll definitely look to move somewhere else this year, and I'm sure many others will too.

Their point is almost the exact opposite to the one a 'gigachad' would make.

And yet their name concludes otherwise.

Fair point! I didn't even notice their username, in case that weren't very obvious.