Makes sense, I agree with you and your assessments. Except for the last point, maybe. Seems like it'd be a weighing of effort and use, or maybe someone implements it out of technical interest. As a feature, I think integrated bug reporting is a good thing. It reduces various barriers. No need for the user to know or learn about and register with whatever tracker the project uses, etc. Still, depends on the project, kind of users, and certainly effort. If implemented it has a maintenance cost and potential for bugs too.

If you're a project and want to receive (good) bug reports, don't do it like GitLab.com.
A huge list of ticket templates, asking you to to select a "group" label a "category label" and some other such label from very long lists with unfamiliar names.
I almost gave up even filing and just went YOLO at the end.

For me, issue templates are barriers and annoyances most of the time, that make my report less concise and less useful. At least that's my strong opinion. Of course, I'm not the reason and target audience of what these templates try to protect against and guide submitters. Or maybe I am the target, who knows.

At work I remember a company managing our Jira migration set up a service desk that I found absolutely awful. When I wrote the exact same thing in four separate text fields, it's just stupid. The end-user first level support guard being used for us software developers felt like the completely wrong tool for the job.

In German, we have the acronym DAU for dümmster anzunehmender User - stupidest user to expect. Is there an EN term for DAU?

Hating on Jira and Confluence together is a great team bonding experience.

Do these kinds of templates actually help against really bad submissions, though? A bit or significantly?

While I can see that maybe they do, I also think of low-effort submissions as if they didn't care without a template, will they care and invest more when guided with a template? Maybe it's enough to make some not post in the first place. I don't know.

I wish it was more of a "open or guided submission", or a "open submission by default, guide/request if insufficient". If it doesn't get a follow up, can still be closed.

The git forge ticketing systems not differentiating between issue description and first comment is another issue that relates to this.

When I get genuinely frustrated and irritated, when I communicate that it's typically still with a smile. Dark humor, if you will. I'm mostly thinking of team-external factors, though.

Within team, it's mainly about one specific colleague's work. I've voiced issues and frustrations, to them, teammates, and HR. Nothing fundamentally helped, though. By now, I try to act and think in damage-control mode. To not waste too much time and effort or mental capacity on their work. Still a waste to go through review iterations you feel are useless and wasteful, that they should have noticed and solved beforehand on their own.

Only once have I used harsh, blunt wording in an email to an admin after prod was down yet again, and there was no upfront or at any point communication regarding that they made some changes. It didn't have a lasting (negative) effect, at least.

That sounds more like frustration and resignation than (heated) anger.

Or do you mean you don't care about the fallout of getting angry?

That sounds like it's unmaintainable. No chance to guard against (severe) consequential issues(?).

Thanks, I hate it indeed

The meta tag makes your browser default to dark for a user's dark preference. That means you don't need additional CSS at all for a baseline. It also means if you forget or miss a dark or light alternative style for some element, the browser defaults already cover them.

Thinker mentioned the separate CSS loading separately. Which can lead to relayouts, in the worst cases flashing like they mentioned, but typically just increased loading time until first render, and less robustness against connection issues (html loads but css doesn't).

#20260822_BlogCommentsViaHashtags - the post

lol, only one blog post per day globally - or sth

In the past month, 15.8k commits came from "robobun," 1.6k commits from "autofix-ci[bot]," and 790 commits from Jarred.

No chance anybody is reviewing those. Worse, nobody else can reasonably inspect or review changes. I suspect even from release to release, you're looking basically at a new codebase, the next release invalidating all your previous assessment, and release to release assessment to be impossible.

16/30 = 533 per day. I don't know when 1.3 was, but even just the three month delay means 48k commits. Who knows how many changes per commit. Crazy numbers.

Firefox shows me the worst date format. In other places it uses my Windows date format; I know because I tried using yyyy-MM-dd, which worked for display, but broke editing. I guess it uses the content language for the date picker? What a mess.

Please add / You really should add <meta name="color-scheme" content="light dark" />, ref

As an aside; my dark reader dark inject breaks the website layout on that website. I've never seen that on any other website.

I accept your cookies

or install Age of Empires as well /s

• https://tuios.gaurav.zip/
• https://github.com/Gaurav-Gosain/tuios

Also, nobody actually knows if human intelligence is just finer grained stochastic prediction as well.

An interesting but valid argument. It doesn't make AI better than it is, but any human contribution and change can and often is also faulty. People have gaps of knowledge, sometimes unwarranted confidence, other times lack of care, or just miss things. It's not like we're comparing the perfect human vs faulty AI.

If you don’t mind the security risk then you can of course use an older release.

I haven't read the original rage/drama but I can imagine if from other drama instances.

This post is certainly a good, founded response.

There's some valid concerns in AI usage, but unwarranted or inappropriate harsh criticism when it's an established trusted developer and engineer - if we assumed good practice before then we could assume continued good practice. Maybe LLM is one point of increasing skepticism, but criticism should be open, respectful, and fair.

They invested a lot of time and effort into a public good project. In that context, they deserve at least respectful and non-worst-assumptuous criticism.

That's a read-only mirror, not a "move onto GitHub".

PRs get automatically closed, referring to the contrib docs.

• https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/contributing/how_to_submit_a_patch.html
• https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/

Turned into a skeleton in 10 minutes

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.