Lots of assumptions that the article is AI-authored (it could be but I'm not seeing overtly obvious signs - it's quite readable) & a lot of ungrounded assumptions that this is somehow related to Bitwarden integrating AI into their product.
I really thought reading comprehension among HN users was better than this.
There are worse things to mention about OneCLI as it looks like a completely vibe-coded mess, seeing that CLAUDE.md and Claude itself being one of the contributors [0]
Perhaps the most damning discovery is that they don't even do basic dependency pinning [1] [2] which just risks another supply chain attack.
As soon as I saw that, that was everything I needed to know about the project. No security audit whatsoever and Bitwarden believes this is something worth integrating.
Having agents contribute to a tool designed for agentic coding is thoroughly unsurprising - if anything, your contributor link showing that 873 LoC were written by Claude, in a project with tens of thousands of lines contributed, seems to show far fewer agentic contributions than I would normally expect. It seems far from vibe coded looking at those stats alone.
The lack of package pinning is unfortunate but common enough that I'd simply open a ticket (& expect them to address it) rather than writing off the entire project.
The lack of a security audit for a project this young is also unsurprising & hardly notable.
I've observed this in all chatbots with the single exception being Grok. I initially wondered what the Twitter engineers were cooking to to distinguish their product from the rest, but more recently it's occurred to me that it's probably just the result of having shared public context, compared to private chats (I haven't trialled Grok privately).
Grok has similar levels of sycophancy to the others imho. I have several times followed it down rabbit holes of agreeableness. It does have an argumentative mode, but that just turns it into an asshole without any additional thoughfulness.
Yeah this makes sense (presuming you're talking about private chat). Most of what I've seen from Grok is its comments in a public forum, which are less targetted toward a single individual & therefore, I presume, less likely to be agreeable given the perspectives being expressed are diverse.
In my experience Grok is the least likely to push back on crazy ideas out of all major chatbots and it’s more often wrong on technical matters. Although I suppose this isn’t necessarily bad. I go to Grok for subjective explorations.
1. Provision of optional tools: I may use an ai agent differently to all other devs on a team, but it seems useful for me to have access to the same set of project-specific commands, skills & MCP configs that my colleagues do. I amn't forced to use them but I can choose to on a case by case basis.
2. Guardrails: it seems sensible to define a small subset of things you want to dissuade everyone's agents from doing to your code. This is like the agentic extension of coding standards.
I was a die-hard Opera user when it ran Presto - I tried the Chrome version for a while, & I have Vivaldi installed so I can periodically open it & try it out for a while, but absolutely everything since Opera 12, Vivaldi included, has paled in comparison.
Opera 12 was instantaneous in everything it did, even with a session with 100s of tabs open (without auto-unloading them in the background like modern browsers do) & thousands of local emails in M2. The instant history navigation in particular is something no modern browser has even attempted to copy, Vivaldi included (likely because it's a core Chromium functionality that would be difficult to override).
There's just so many tiny details of its UX that were slick & seamless & have been lost. Little things that seem minor but were huge on aggregate like text selection of linkified text - it simply does not work in Gecko or Blink browsers but somehow Presto did it with ease. The page you're leaving remaining fully responsive during navigation to facilitate change-of-mind on mis-clicks, etc. Millions of tiny UX details like this just made the whole daily browsing experience so painless.
It really was. I had a computer with 16 MB RAM and Opera was basically the only browser that worked on it. The back button was instant in a way nothing has ever been again.
They had some kind of intermediate representation of page renders that was efficiently cached on disk so that it made zero network requests on history navigation. I suspect this same approach also played a part in facilitating the fulltext history search feature I've also never seen in a browser since.
I'm guessing with the way web standards have evolved & become more complex this might actually be impossible to do today while remaining compliant - honestly give me non-compliance though.
True! Came to post the same thing - one of my favourite feature of Opera Presto engine was how all the websites in your history was also "indexed" locally, so that you could do a simple keyword search on "History" to find the web page you wanted to re-visit. It was fast and accurate and made it a breeze to find any site in that you had browsed and was still cached, and it was an incredibly useful feature.
Yeah, I don't know, I don't see how you can't pause execution and store the entire interpreter state and DOM somewhere. Maybe it's just that nobody cares enough to go through all the effort?
Modern pages would also likely be much more touchy about the imperfections of such a mechanism. A lot of “old browsers good” in general seems to be about modern webdev, not modern browsers[1].
They had funny ads about it being fast. One showed opening a tab vs peeling a potato. Another one was opening a tab vs starting a jet.
I loved gestures, built in IRC client, RSS reader, notes and the experimental website hosting from the browser. There were many cool plugins too. Did it have a torrent client too? I seem to remember as if it had everything :)
I'm from Ireland, where filling beers precisely up to the brim is practically a religion, & many barmen will even take the glass back & top it up if they see the head diminishing too quickly in the space of time it takes you to pick the freshly poured pint up.
One thing that always struck me as odd is how the culture is seemingly the opposite of this in apparent beer meccas like Belgium - not only are the glasses typically much smaller (this is fine) but they also leave massive gaps at the top. The glass capacity is never treated as being close to the rim at all.
> not only are the glasses typically much smaller (this is fine) but they also leave massive gaps at the top
I'm wondering if this is due to the prevalence of cask ales vs bottle/keg conditioning. The former is relatively uncommon in Belgium and you want the head from the latter.
That said, oversized glassware (e.g. Duvel's tulip for aromatics) and/or fill lines are also used to accommodate the head while still not cheating the customer out of volume.
It could well have emerged as a cultural norm from the prevalence of heads, but I've seen it often for very moderate heads, with a gap left above the foam.
> not cheating the customer out of volume
I don't think it's cheating if its the norm. One would expect prices to be set appropriately for the average volume served (i.e. a full glass would be a bonus rather than the gap being a loss).
I do just find it odd, coming myself from the opposite culturally.
I remember watching the cornetto trilogy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Flavours_Cornetto ) and always wondering why on earth they fill up the glasses up to the brim. It is uncomfortable to transport this way and not spill beer.
When CAMRA was new in the early 1970s, they started a campaign for oversize glasses holding a pint to the line instead of a pint to the rim, so that there would be space for a pint of liquid and a head in the glass. The big breweries hated this idea and mounted a reactionary campaign arguing things like it would be too expensive to replace all the glasses, or serve customers the full measure they had paid for. (My father was a new recruit at Guinness and sadly one of his early tasks was the pint-to-brim campaign.)
I no longer drink in pubs but in my neck of the woods, the pubs that specialised in cask ale often had lined glasses.
The problem was that many people insisted on the glass being filled to the brim, because they felt they were being short changed. So it solved one problem but created another.
Belgian glasses, like wine glasses, leave room for head and aromatics.
Belgium is also fanatical about matching the glass with the beer, and Europe has the very sensible pour line on glasses, so it is designed for a certain fill and filled to the design.
You could get a pint of nothing but head as well, if you wanted.
In Spain they try to create the head by dumping the beer in the glass, Guinness style, and letting it excessively foam up. So it's half flat and half full.
Same in Germany. In Belgium, the glasses don't have a line and they don't fill them to the brim neither! The only thing that prevents pubs from cheating you out of some of your beer is their reputation. And to be honest, I sometimes had doubts about getting all that I paid for.
My understanding is Belgian beer culture considers the aroma to be an important part of the experience. But I’ve never been, that’s all through osmosis.
This is exactly it. That's why the glasses have the same basic form (stem, bowl, and tapered rim) as wine glasses and snifters. The liquid sits in the bowl, and the aroma is captured in the empty space between the liquid and the rim.
The only sensible approach here is pint-to-line glasses. I don't want my glass filled to the very top where I'll spill it, I want it filled to the pint line. Sadly in the UK up to 5% of the pint is allowed to be foam, but I'd expect any sensible barman in the UK to top me up to the pint line if I asked, and be apologetic about it.
> the Guinness head means you're getting less than a pint of actual beer
I hate to be pedantic but pint being volumetric, you're still getting a pint, independent of density. Also - a nitrogen head doesn't dissipate, so you never get a gap.
I'm now curious though whether a nitrogen head is less dense than a CO2 head...
I'm sure it dissipates eventually but I've worked at weddings collecting pints that were forgotten about untouched - it really is a very very slow dissipation.
My experience in Belgium is that people also have very different expectations for foam and aroma. Also: our beers are quite strong and often double or triple fermented (or more), so there’s plenty of space in a glass to account for foam. Just a few guesses.
I don't know if other companies do this anywhere but if you live in Ireland. Diageo have roles for people to travel around the country doing precisely this.
You're right that labelling any outage as "Github is down" is an overgeneralisation, & we should focus on bottlenecks that impact teams in a time sensitive matter, but that isn't the case here. Their most stable service (API) has only two 9s (99.69%).
They're not even struggling to get their average to three 9s, they're struggling to get ANY service to three 9s. They're struggling to get many services to two 9s.
Copilot may be the least stable at one 9, but the services I would consider most critical (Git & Actions) are also at one 9.
Most people complaining about uptime aren't free users or open-source developers. It's people whose companies are enterprise GitHub customers. It's a real problem and affects productivity.
The issue is also that those 27 hours don't happen at once, They happen in small chunks of a couple minutes which makes it happen almost everyday and has a ton of downstream build and retry issues. The resulting downtime is probably 2 orders of magnitudes higher at least.
Those 27 hours only seem to happen during the workday when I’m trying to push branches, run CI pipelines or otherwise use GitHub (I don’t use Copilot). Whatever the yearly figure, it’s been a pain in the ass these last few months and it’s unacceptable, free or no (my company pays for GitHub).
Honestly, you're right - 2̶7̵ 87+ (correction from sibling) hours per year is absolutely fine & normal for me & anything I want to run. I personally think it should be fine for everybody.
On the other hand the baseline minimal Github Enterprise plan with no features (no Copilot, GHAS, etc.) runs a medium sized company $1m+ per annum, not including pay-per-use extras like CI minutes. As an individual I'm not the target audience for that invoice, but I can envisage whomever is wanting a couple of 9s to go with it. As a treat.
> admittedly, hella rare. Apparently there are less than a few dozen confirmed world-wide
What's actually hella rare is tests for tetrachromacy. Given the total number of people who have ever taken such a test, I think it's reasonable to assume there are significantly more than a few dozen actual tetrachromats out there.
It's theoretically related to color blindness, so you'd expect it to be as common. But the problem is even if your eye has the extra primary, your brain may not have developed the ability to "see" it. They had to test quite a few people with the proper genetic background before they finally found one.
That's fair but even colour blindness is mostly undiagnosed in practice - even with the comparatively high prevalence & awareness, actual figures for colour blindness are still grounded in speculative extrapolation.
I think it fundamentally comes down to whether your sense anomaly represents a significant disability. Colour blindness is a disability, but not one that's significant for the vast majority of people who suffer from it - I've worked with multiple colour blind graphic designers & they were good at their job. There's very little impetus to even seek diagnosis - if they weren't working in a colour-focused industry I suspect they may not have ever realised they had a disability at all.
Tetrachromacy then is an even harder case because it's not a disability at all. The impetus to seek "diagnosis" is zero. Also, even though as you mention there's technically multiple ways of detecting the various factors that need to coexist in tetrachromacy (i.e. (1) sensory testing, (2) physical presence of extra primaries, (3) neurological processing pathways), the latter two are either not directly detectable or never directly tested for - even in speculative cases of people having a 4th primary, the number of primaries present is generally hypothesised via some other avenue like testing for anomalous trichromacy. Ultimately we're heavily relying on direct sensory testing which is almost nonexistent in the general population. There's no way to accurately speculate on how prevalent it might be.
Would like to see the prompt that generated this article because it's narrowly looking at underlying base framework performance as its only metric, yet buries that lede very well (at least in prose - obvious enough from the data of course).
Of course the conclusion is wrong though - looking at the data I would conclude that it's base framework performance that "doesn't matter" as a metric rather than framework choice itself.
Lots of assumptions that the article is AI-authored (it could be but I'm not seeing overtly obvious signs - it's quite readable) & a lot of ungrounded assumptions that this is somehow related to Bitwarden integrating AI into their product.
I really thought reading comprehension among HN users was better than this.