So, assuming good faith, they used two Telegram bots for some service functionality
these two bots are used to resolve username from user id, eg tg://user?id=25
Obviously, that should never happen silently. But these findings don't necessarily mean data has been compromised [beyond the scope of the app itself].
I get they may be very frustrated and annoyed at the negative blowback after their FOSS efforts, but dismissing concerns isn't a good way to respond.
Segment the text; Normalize whitespace, apply Unicode line-break rules, and split the string into measurable units using the browser's own text segmentation.
Measure with Canvas; Feed each segment through Canvas measureText() to get real glyph advance widths from the font engine. Results are cached.
Pretext.js uses pure arithmetic; Given a container width, compute line breaks by summing segment widths. Multiply line count by line-height. Return height. No DOM, ever.
Unfortunately, that doesn't really explain the final integration. And it seems I misunderstood/-assumed at first.
Looking at the example at the top right, it renders numerous div elements?
So, presumably, you lose text wrap behavior and clean markup like <p> for a paragraph? I also can't select text from it in a normal or consistent way.
This example isn't very convincing either.
Seems like a cool visual gimmick more than practically useful and accessible for primary content.
I work for a small ~30-person company with various customers, including some very big names. We're very deliberate about where tools like those could help us, where it's worth the exploration and investment. We want to be innovative and have the expertise, but at the same time, be reasonable and sound. We're also very conscious of data sharing and safeguards, in part out of necessity, because we can't just share our customers' code or data with third parties.
Excitement, commitment, use, and hopes of using AI tools differ between colleagues. What we can use and how differs between projects.
So yes, there are definitely other kinds of companies and environments out there.
Isn't it for the team to find out and decide whether they reached "gold plating" yet? That statement doesn't sound like a rejection or reason for rejection to me.
Retrospectives are great for finding and sharing a consensus on these kinds of issues. The team can weigh their options. Known limitations are much better than unknown ones. And often, some bandaids and workarounds are possible to diminish negative effects, at least to a degree.
I've definitely had things we had to wait for, or are still waiting for. At least we don't usually get outright rejections.
A code leak doesn't give a code and product use license. Any project and product use based on the leaked code is less stable and safe than other solid projects under clear terms. OpenCode is not obsolete.
Codeberg, and because I already have a VPS (server), I'd check for Forgejo packages (I would only use them if security updates automatically update/install).
Huge growth in tooling and systems making use of "community" dependencies
Fewer safeguards and security guarantees and concerns on these platforms
Easy entry into these platforms and systems
Huge potential scale-effect through global software development tooling
Huge additional potential scale effect through developer and development systems - crossing into other such platforms through local credentials, immediate access to internal tooling, platforms, and systems, and potential to attack other downstream systems and platforms
Public knowledge about the attack vectors, attack successes and reporting, and continued opportunity, occurrence, and personal successes, investment, and knowledge
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.
This post argues something that would never come to my mind. Of course software that annoys users has developers and development too. Of course its development also requires balancing user requests and convenience vs business and technical capability (and priority). Of course you can't directly conclude to [technical] engineering quality from its perception, behavior, or irritation.
What's left after these nothing-burgers?
Looking back, I’m glad that people have strongly disliked some of the software I’ve built[…]. If I’d happened to work on popular applications for my whole career, I’d probably believe that that was because of my sheer talent.
Wtf? They think they wouldn't be able to recognize that it's not solely on them or their superiority that their software is popular?
I… don't get it. Maybe I just don't get what this is supposed to be about.
These central standards should be a common good. Pay out the patents with a fair price and move them into the public good. I imagine they already made more than enough money through these patents through HEVC.
One month ago, I posted a comment with screenshots and my opinion. It also links ot the official Stack Overflow resources regarding it.