SeaweedFS has been our choice as a replacement for both local development and usage in our semi-ephemeral testing k8s cluster (both for its S3 interface). The switch went very smooth.

I can't really say anything about advanced features or operational stability though.

Even outside of code development, Anthropic seems to be very strongly leaning into code interpreter over native tool calling for advancing agentic LLM abilities (e.g. their "skills" approach). Given that those necessitate a runtime of sorts, owning/having access to a runtime like Bun that could e.g. allow them to very seamlessly integrate that functionality into their products better, this acquisition doesn't seem like the worst idea.

> with a high degree of certainty

No it didn't. As the top comment in that thread points out, there were a large number of false positives.

Software is eating the world.

AI is eating the VCs.

MLaaS (money laundering as a service)

We know that being a billionaire surrounded by yes-men all day causes brain damage, and we know that being on social media living in a delusion bubble all day causes brain damage, so really they were already cooked even before signing what was left of their brains over to the LLMs.

AI will be running the VCs if it's not already.

when the bar is this low it will be hard to tell any difference

https://www.ycombinator.com/companies?batch=Fall%202025

One doesn't exclude the other. You can use machine translation and clearly marking it as such, and then let people override them if there is the necessary contribution activity.

> This really depends on company size

It mainly depends on whether the company is trying to sell to governments that have accessibility requirements anchored into their procurement process requirements. Of course there is some causality between company size and ability to service government contracts.

> So you are ok with 2FA, right?

Yes. Are you not? It's one of the most effective measures to prevent a whole class of supply chain attacks. On Github the 2FA is also flexible enough to allow non-hardware passkeys, so you can choose a privacy preserving option with good UX.

Last I looked a couple of years ago, GitHub 2fa has a lot of shoddy gotchas actually. There are a handful of GH issues on it with tons of comments.

For example it was impossible to remove/delete a phone number 2fa, even if you registered multiple other 2fa sources like security keys.

In theory sure, but you have to evaluate how likely it is.

Some typical dynamics:

Big org platform -> exposed to risk, as you are not a significant addition to their bottom line

Small donation platform -> Can be easily bullied by payment processors to "derisk"

---

every.org is a bit special, as it only lists 501c nonprofits - which the Zig Foundation is - and AFAIK has a decent track record. Most other open source projects don't clear that bar.

I've seen quite a few HR hiring processes where a mediocre HR person (knows to look for GH profile + activity on that, but not how to evaluate them) is paired with engineers with too little input power. In those processes, people that game their GH profiles tend to benefit.