What followed was extraordinary: 329 comments and counting, ranging from thoughtful concern to outright harassment.
The thread did not stop at words. One user posted My Little Pony drawings of themselves strangling the "project janitor that pushed vibecoded commits":
It spread to Hacker News and Lobsters, generating hundreds more comments.
It is neat that Lobsters has this feature (and HN should too), and I'm glad you took a beat to explain it. I think you didn't need the last sentence, though.
I have done so! that was a misremembering on my part. first mention of Lobsters is now here:
> On Lobste.rs, in response to the Medium essay Tridge himself posted in response, finally some users like boramalper begin to actually ask for evidence one way or another:
> when I saw someone complain about what he thought the title should be, I just used his idea instead of my own. This upset the moderator so much when he saw that I was optimizing my writing style based on feedback from his site
I was unaware the blog copied my title change until seeing this on HN and I have no emotional reaction to it. I've replaced over a hundred clickbait titles and it's not an emotionally evocative chore. Anyone can read my contemporaneous explanation at https://lobste.rs/c/hjlmw1 to see my reasoning and judge for themself how upset I sound.
Your linked comment comes across to me in much the same way as TFA: seething with bitterness kept just beneath the surface, channeled into a style that projects authority and precision.
This is pure passive aggression:
> To ease her confusion and conscience, and in the hopes of dealing with less trolling, I have banned her domain.
I then read the links in that post, and some of the comments in the Lobsters thread, including by someone now appearing as "inactive-user". I think the points inactive-user made about the distinction between bannable and benign actions being somewhat arbitrary and footgun-ish are sound. At the same time, user matklad pointed out that the subsequent behaviour of Justine's invitees (namely, posting many more articles from their own sites) was exactly what the bans were designed to prevent, which I agree with.
I do accept that a forum like Lobsters (or HN) is beset on all sides by spammers whose participation, if left unchecked, threatens their very existence. So it's unfortunately necessary to have and enforce rules, which will inevitably be imperfect.
For now I've concluded that two people on opposite sides of a really quite small argument about a grey area were looking for a fight, and that both took actions to escalate it.
> Your linked comment comes across to me in much the same way as TFA: seething with bitterness kept just beneath the surface, channeled into a style that projects authority and precision.
It reads entirely to me like someone tired of dealing with a chronic rule-abuser. That is what moderators are for. I don't see how you interpret any of that as the mod looking for a fight.
This title and premise are incorrect. It's not a bait-and-switch unless the bait was unavailable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch Vivado really was available free. There's a lot of potential criticisms one could write of the decision to change that (and basically all of them were made in this and the previous thread), but bait-and-switch is not one of them.
> "GitHub only gets better if people who give a shit stick around to make it better"
What's the mechanism of action here? What changes if I stay? What changes if I give more or less of a shit? Is there javascript telemetry feeding my shit into a dashboard with a calibrated shitometer for executives to consult when they set quarterly objectives? My account is six weeks younger than mitchellh's and I've been watching GitHub fall apart for the last year, what will happen because I stick around to watch for another year? Besides that I will get covered in shit.
You're an employee. What changes if you stick around? Back in October 2025, the GitHub CTO Federov prioritized moving to Azure above feature work (https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-to-a...). Yesterday he recommitted to it (https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/an-update-on-...), writing "We started executing our plan to increase GitHub’s capacity by 10X in October 2025 with a goal of substantially improving reliability and failover." GitHub has had six bad months of increasing bugs and sharply decreased uptime, and the CTO just recommitted to staying the course. You've explicitly been directed to move to Azure, not to give a shit or to make things better.
So I'll defer to your direct expertise. From the outside, Heroku stalled and died because Salesforce prioritized everything else in its business above Heroku. Are GitHub's priorities so different? Does you giving a shit make Azure and Copilot the best top priorities for GitHub? Will Azure and Copilot be why I stop seeing SPA jank? Will Azure and Copilot be why I can see my list of open PRs? Will Azure and Copilot be why I see something more than the 500 unicorn? Will Azure and Copilot stop the spam PRs that want to undermine the quality of my code? Will Azure and Copilot lead to anything other than the same corporate dismissal and dysfunction that led to Heroku? Will you giving a shit matter?
This is a little late for your nice jacket, but a lot of zipper damage comes from dirt getting into the teeth and then the zip grinds everything up. Outdoors shops sell a zipper lubricant to keep the dirt from sticking.
There's a lobbying group called 5rights that has designed and promoted the UK OSA, AU OSA, California KOSA, Federal KOSA, and more. This isn't some conspiracy. They take proudly take credit for these bills on their website, and in news coverage you'll see their same couple media personalities over and over: https://5rightsfoundation.com/our-work/
Thanks! I didn't know about TypeID (and I thought I'd searched thoroughly).
The formalization interests me. Shame they shifted the UUID 2 bits right. Otherwise our implementations would be almost compatible (only the last 2 bits of the 26th character + the last 3 characters would differ). In my next clean codebase, I may use TypeID and append a 15-bit checksum.
You did not share a link to a blog post. The title was "Effective Haskell is a hands-on practical book way to learn Haskell. No math or formal CS needed" and it linked to the site advertising your book for sale. I removed it because we don't get good discussions out of ads.
I shared the story as I remember it. Memory is imperfect. It's been years since I deleted my account, and I don't have the luxury of access to server or moderation logs.
What I do remember unambiguously is being an active member of the site, contributing regularly and in good faith, being accused of spamming, and the general feeling of hostility that I got from the site.
You got a DM and email with the title and URL when your story was removed. This would've been 2023-08-03 with the subject "Your story has been edited by a moderator", if you want to look back: https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/blob/86e1d0b6ac6bac5210...
But you're correct on the second part, there isn't a level of activity that entitles anyone to post a sales page with nothing to discuss on it. Your activity was taken into account, though. Typically if a new user's first activity is to post an ad I'll also ban the site or user. I understand the rules aren't as permissive as you wanted, but ads don't start good discussions.
IMO, the lobste.rs admin's assertion that the post had "nothing to discuss" is a misjudgment that undercuts the rest of their rationalization. My guess is that they're looking for a win on technicality, instead of addressing the myriad of concerns raised elsewhere in this thread.
I don't know why you think I want a "technical win" from you, but I'm not seeking your approval. I corrected your mistake about the URL and the policy, like I corrected the author's mistake about what I removed. If you and other sites prefer different policies, it's no skin off my nose.
reply