There are passive open source projects done by people out of love in their spare time over the years and then there are active open source projects done by people with the idea of executing in the open space and building a community around it. The later has business incentives tied around it and I guess the challenge is that there isnt a clear structure which leads to this situation.

These are just conventions, one can pretty much do whatever they want in their applications. At the same time convention has its own advantages (most of the times, think about code maintenance). Its still along the excepted line as long as the mutations are side effects of the GET request. Somewhere down the line the intent is to provide a separation to easily understand the systems.

Companies like cloudflare operate at a very critical spot as of today. They manage the end points where TLS terminates for most of the internet traffic which means that they have access to all the information flowing through them in clear. When a company is so much motivated by the profits then it would not be too far away when they start selling all this information. With this much centralized control, they can easily turn to abusers instead of being internet gatekeepers for profit. Firing so many people is bound to disrupt the operations, the only question is how much can they can hide/manage.

> When a company is so much motivated by the profits

That is what a company is for.

I think this is the reason why the detailed definition of companies varies, the motivation and regulation on a company varies too. Absent the regulations, financial institutions would have run off with the money by now

If you are just starting out its probably a good idea. Think about the use case when google bans either your app or bans your app user?

Then your business is entirely screwed anyway because you've just lost half the market

At least to me it sounded very much like they were talking about mobile.

Unfortunately this is a common premise and on surface its a good idea too to let a expert in particular domain handle it. Where it gets muddy is when this third party are themselves learners and just see this as a good business opportunity

Its either of two things, either this person is going by market forces, saying whatever makes sense to please the market or the individual has not idea of what it takes to build software by self

This seems to be the default path which is encouraged/suggested lately, only happy path until you acquire customers

I think it’s fairly normal at least in my career - rush to ship something, lots of “we’ll polish this later,” two years go by, get called into vp/cto/whoever’s office when the debt comes calling like “what the fuck why is this like this???” and I have to say “that ‘later’ we decided is now I guess”

The script I have fairly seen being played is where the one doing MVP gets rewarded and moves on with a promotion. The weight of completing and stabilizing the MVP falls on some one else who is not vocal enough in terms of influence. Ironically the flashy MVP does not includes monitoring, logging, security, edge-cases, CI-CD, DR, scaling which is why vibe coding is getting so popular and everyone seems to be under the impression that engineers are not needed anymore.

The only good justification of it can be that the companies can claim that the age verification was done as per Terms of Service, so in the future no parent or parent group can come after them for the content. Along with better targeted advertising by identifying the target audiences.

Logically parents are probably best suited to gate the content for their children how they see it fit.

These type of experiments are bound to have biases depending on who is doing it and who is funding it. The experiment is being funded for a particular reason itself to move the narrative in a desired direction. This is probably a good reason to have government funded research in these type of sensitive areas.

Thanks for jumping in the conversation. Logically it does makes sense to attribute the authors correctly, however in this context it might be helpful if you can provide any details about the users complaining that their PR's are being marked as co-authored even when they have not used the copilot? Is that intentional or a missed check in the implementation.

Also for layman readers like me who might not be actively involved, it might have been helpful to add the issue/referenced conversation why this change was made on the PR itself

The fact that non-AI changes are attributed to Copilot is a bug. The intent was to allow customers to add attribution of AI-generated code. As with any bug, it was not intetional.

you intentionally ignored internal reports of if not working

>The fact that non-AI changes are attributed to Copilot is a bug.

But sneaking in the attribution to Copilot without approval was the feature?