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.
but the article itself doesn’t mention what patents AV1 would have broken
The article does mention and links them
Dolby is accusing Snap of infringing upon four of its patents: U.S. Patent No. 10,855,99 “Inter-plane prediction”; U.S. Patent No. 9,924,193 “Picture coding supporting block merging and skip mode”; U.S. Patent No. 9,596,469 “Sample array coding for low-delay”; and U.S. Patent No. 10,404,272 “Entropy encoding and decoding scheme.”
If you don't use the parameter functionality of prepared statements, yeah. That also means you don't use a prepared statement, you construct varying sql strings and prepare varying "prepared" statements.
5 with reasonable acceptance and use, even advocacy, for up to 1. I don't see a difference between 4 and 5, though.
Reviews should be the norm. Even for simple changes, a simple code change should be simple to review and approve, too. At the same time, some formatting changes or small or minimal changes with high confidence can be pushed to main without review - that'd be just wasted time and effort on the reviewer's side. High urgency can also warrant an immediate push to main, or live hotfixing on prod if possible, with a corresponding PR still open.
What do you mean by government suppression? The government suppressing entities, or you as the authorizing individual?
EU has eIDAS, and Germany has an existing working system. A certified publisher and you with your NFC phone can confirm your age above x without disclosing any other information about your identity. It runs with sophisticated cryptographic negotiation between the three parties. For you as an end user, obviously the government already knows of your existence beforehand and can serve as an authorative entity. The two other parties can then verify their validity to each other through the mutually trusted entity without revealing unnecessary information to any of the parties. Practically, the requesting entity must be certified by the state to confirm their validity and reasonable necessity of what kind of data they plan to request, and the user use their moile phone NFC and an app to read their identity document, and give explicit consent to specific data sharing.
I'm not too familiar with the specifics of what the state can see in this system. It seemed plausible to me that they may not even see that you're authenticating with a specific party or that and what you're sharing. Cryptography ftw.
It's a tool that adds yet more complexity to our profession. More choice, more cost-benefit-analysis, more risk assessment, more shitty stuff to inherit and fix, more ability for shitty code producers to hide incompetence, more product and data policy analysis, more publisher trustworthyness and safety analysis, more concerns regarding what tooling sends into the cloud and what it can access and do locally, a significant "cheap and fast solution" you will be compared against requiring more communication, explanation, justification, new attack vectors to protect against, …
My team and some others [can] use Copilot at my workplace. I haven't had or seen significant gains. Only very selectively. Some other senior devs I trust are also skeptical/selective. We see the potential opportunities, but they're not new solutions. Some other colleagues are more enthusiastic.
What it does is make me question bad code from review request authors. Whether they missed it, are this unobservant, or incapable, or used AI. Quality, trustworthyness, and diligence are concerns anyway, but now I can't really assess how much care and understanding they actually take, if they're misled, take shortcuts, and how that changes over time - other than asking of course.
I'm not scared for my job. It already changed the field and industry, but not in a net quality productivity gain. And will continue to in one way or another. There are many parts of and surrounding software development that it can't do well.
Update - 13/03/2026 11:10 UTC - The Lutris creator has restored the Claude attribution, with a comment noting "Since it's such a big fuss, I'm putting the Claude attribution back".
I obviously don't know your environment, but I don't think a manager needs access or knowledge to git to effectively manage teams, hear and understand team member concerns, and to steer guidelines and guardrails.
I appreciate your comment, even when many others downvote it. Honest experiences like this provide context and should always be upvoted in my eyes.
You didn't even make any claims about effectiveness or usefulness. Downvotes like these make me sad and make me feel like this is an unwelcoming community in general, where you can't have open and honest discussions.
Bruno is a Git-friendly and offline-first open-source API client aimed at revolutionizing the status quo represented by tools like Postman and Insomnia.
if I could stay later when there’s broken things in prod
In general, or on this instance?
Do you have team retrospectives? That's where I would bring it up in my team. Raise my concerns, explore and understand what team consensus is around this topic, around risks, quality, etc.
If the team consensus and/or management consensus is YOLO - then I try to protect myself from personal investment and going beyond contractual obligations. Because I already know what will come and how it will negatively affect me personally.
It's possible a honest discussion with management about goals and risks could lead to clarified guidelines, requirements, and goals. If it doesn't, I'd probably be looking for a better job/environment. Because I'll be miserable if colleagues YOLO, no matter how careful I am personally.
Some people are more receptive to these kinds of things than others. Not only in terms of open mind but also how they are able to apply it (or capable of applying it?).
I wish agreeing on intentions and improvements in terms of scoping and description would be met. Same with unnecessary, obvious issues showing up costing review time and iterations. I just don't get how these are issues - but they are - for or with some people.
I never thought I would move away from FOSS/AGPL by default. The more I read about this issue, the more I consider providing free services instead of FOSSing. It's a shame.
FOSS is still important and necessary to a degree, for auditability and self-hostability, very important for security and control, even as a conscious/careful user.
Maybe this puts us more towards "pay to free the code" or something, so there is at least some compensation. Won't make verbatim regenerated AGPL to MIT any less hurtful though.
If you publish a free service, at least they're not feeding from your code too.
I find "from scratch" a questionable claim as well. The model was probably trained on the code it is supposed to replace. Interfacing with the concrete tests and interfaces makes the result even more likely to be and puts it conceptually closer to the original code fed as training data.
They posted an update to the article about this recent update. After feedback, they decided to disable this feature.