>Analyze if it's malware how exactly?

Based on the vibes, I guess.

Isn't this how people have always done it. Me and my boss when we are testing 3rd party binaries we open them in note pad first. Browse through the bits, ctrl f for "virus" or "Russia" get a general feel for how safe it is. I know some people right click and inspect the properties but that's not thorough enough for this digital age.

It's not always you see a status page so colorful...

OP says he's been using Github for 18 years, but he's only leaving now. I think this is enough evidence things have gotten worse.

>This is not the large Elasticsearch outage they had on April 27, 2026. This blog post was written a week before that, so this was a different outage.

Great footnote to finish the article.

Yes, it's extremely awkward! Why is a model that can solve problems in scientific literature the same model that can generate random code, write poems in pirate speech, and do all sorts of other random tasks?

It feels like there is a lot of untapped power for specialized LLM tasks if they were created for specialists instead of the general populace prompting from a smartphone.

The problem is not CSS per se, but HTML.

HTML was designed to be a document language, like a PDF, but worse because it has no absolute positioning so text just changes shape when you change the width.

Almost every website does NOT follow the "document" paradigm but an "app" paradigm with navbars, sidebars, panels, etc. None of these things fit the model HTML was specialized for.

If HTML/CSS were for those things, we would have had scoped rules for classes day 1.

Exactly. The problem is the platform has not kept up with the way it's used in practice. Features are added with strange priorities, and obvious blind spots ignored, leading to it being under-developed in many areas, and over-developed in a handful of others. We get vendors working on weird stuff like Web Bluetooth before obvious things like element anchoring (finally, yay... but still just a Working Draft) and reliable element position tracking (still a huge pain).

There are still no affordances for many things, so people have to invent their own solutions.

I've always had the impression that the "problem" at its crux is that people worked around HTML/CSS limitations. A recent article about IPv4 gave me the same feeling.

When faced with a widespread standard that is sorely lacking, instead of patching the standard globally, people come up with their own workarounds. This accumulates until the whole thing becomes a conceptually "pure" core under a transfigured mess of patches to make it work the way the modern world needs it to work.

For HTML, I feel that PHP and Web 2.0 did unspoken harm to it. A lot of things that are done by server-side rendering (and afterwards in client-side rendering) should just be features built into HTML from the start. Templates, themes, widgets (panels), components, etc. Now we have "templates" and "components" but neither of these terms mean something in HTML that actually does what you would expect from a templating language which is critical of almost every website.

I mean, am I crazy to think that if you have 2 webpages that share the same navbar, you shouldn't need a build step or special program just to handle this use case in a way that is maintainable? It should just be built into HTML? Javascript isn't a solution to this because that means the website is unusable without Javascript, and that sounds stupid. You need to enable Javascript just to have a navbar? Or you need a whole SSR just to avoid having to copy-paste the navbar? Or a build step? How did we keep using this thing for 30 years?

I feel like because developers could just do this with PHP/JS, these basic features never made into the pure HTML language.

The weird thing is that these languages still get features, just not any features that makes it more powerful at building simple things. HTML has video, web assembly, CSS has animated fonts. But you still need a separate program if you want the same navbar everywhere.

AI for writing feels like such a stupid idea.

When you write things you just need to think about what you want to say and write it. It's not hard.

If you make an LLM generate the text, and you still bear responsibility for whether it's correct or not, you haven't actually reduced the amount of work you have to do at all because now instead of "thinking -> writing" you need "reading -> thinking -> rewriting."

"Reading is easier than writing" sounds like something that someone who never writes anything would think. In both code and natural languages writing is easier than reading. Text is after all a representation of thought, so to write you just need to represent your thoughts in a way others can understand, but in order to read you must decipher what the author was trying to convey from their written word. If the author is an LLM that is going to be a lot more difficult and annoying.

I've had similar feelings about LLM's "completing" code. It "feels" like I'm more productive, but at the same time the "completions" feel more like constant interjections that won't let me get into a flow of writing, and often when things don't work it's because the AI quickly generated code that looked correct at first glance, so I left it that way, but when I tried to run the program it turns out it was wrong, and when it happens I can't help but think: of course it's wrong, I haven't written the code yet. There is code, the LLM wrote it. But I haven't written it. I haven't done the work. So it's like having a "placeholder" that you still HAVE to check but there is no metadata that says this is a WIP, no # TODO: check the LLM output. It's a placeholder camouflaged as finished work.

> When you write things you just need to think about what you want to say and write it. It's not hard.

At least for technical writing at work (internal docs for example), i typically have an extended back and forth conversation with claude refining my ideas, then I have it sketch out the outline which saves _so much time_. Then all I have to do is fix what it got wrong or add things that it missed.

I am not doing this as a creative expression that I find personal fulfillment in, I am doing it to check off a box on a jira issue.

Latest generation LLM's use en dashes instead of em dashes to avoid detection.

No, they don’t. But obviously GP was tongue–—in-–cheek.

At this point I feel Github is getting Wordpress'd.

It has become so critical and ubiquitous that it has become a huge target for attackers.