I wish the most popular software forge didn't include a bunch of other software solutions like issue tracking or forums.
Having everything in one service definitely increases interoperability between those solutions, but it definitely decreases stability. In addition, each of the other systems is not the best in their class (I really detest GH Actions for example).
Why do so many solutions grow so big? Is it done to increase enterprise adoption?
I agree to a degree, but issue tracking being able to directly work with branches and PRs is natural enough, and then discussions can share a lot of code with the issue tracker.
Getting the same level of interoperability with a separate tool takes significantly more work on both sides, so the monolithic approaches tend to thrive because it can get out the door faster and better.
Forgejo is doing the same thing with its actions. Honestly, I'd prefer if something like Woodpecker became the blessed choice instead, and really good integration with diverse tools was the approach.
If the alternative is each user has to patch together all of the different solutions into one, you are just increasing the number of parts that can go wrong, too. And when they do, it won't be immediately clear who the issue is with.
I do agree there are issues with a single provider for too many components, but I am not sure you get any decreased stability with that verse having a different provider for everything.
Of everything potentially causing scope creep in GitHub, issue tracking and forums might be the least out of scope.
That said, I agree that the execution of many features in GitHub has been lacking for some time now. Bugs everywhere and abysmal performance. We're moving to Forgejo at $startup.
Massive strikes that are hard to contain got use the 8 hour work day, weekends and a lot of labor rights. Civil right movements won only because a huge portion of them were militant (back then even the National Rifle Association supported banning guns).
A violent status quo necessitates violence to achieve change.
The suffrage movement in the UK also had a militant component:
> The tactics of the [Women’s Social and Political Union] included shouting down speakers, hunger strikes, stone-throwing, window-smashing, and arson of unoccupied churches and country houses. In Belfast, when in 1914 the Ulster Unionist Council appeared to renege on an earlier commitment to women's suffrage,[27] the WSPU's Dorothy Evans (a friend of the Pankhursts) declared an end to "the truce we have held in Ulster." In the months that followed WSPU militants (including Elizabeth Bell, the first woman in Ireland to qualify as a doctor and gynaecologist) were implicated in a series of arson attacks on Unionist-owned buildings and on male recreational and sports facilities.
This influenced the US suffrage movement, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_the_Unit... , even during WWI: "groups like the National Woman's Party that continued militant protests during wartime were criticized by other suffrage groups and the public, who viewed it as unpatriotic."
How is Sweden, Finland or Norway in any way socialist? I haven't heard anything about seizing the means of production or overthrowing of the capitalist class from them. Unless you treat governments doings stuff as socialism, then I guess they may be.
IMF forces countries to adopt austerity politics[1], causing lower economic activity and often leading to economy shrinkage[2], and forces countries to open their markets to foreign capital, which leads to surplus extraction abroad. Both of those measures lead to impoverishing the country that is taking the loan.
Start with the City Watch series of Discworld. If you like Guards! Guards! then you'll like the next books. After reading a couple of them I'd start branching into other series.
I'm sincerely sorry for your loss, but moving the goalpost doesn't help the discussion. Again, nothing to take away from how dreadful what you lived through is.
That's exactly my point. The discussion started to derail into "Who has more money?" like that's the ultimate metric. This just makes me sad but is pretty representative for the stereotypical US mindset. My point is there is a lot more to life than money.
Just block the domain. At first, you can block manually, but we know Google doesn't like doing things that way. Fortunately, they have a lot of heuristics to find sites like that; usually the content is just copied from another source. And since they scrape the web all the time, they should know which content has appeared first where.
But the issue isn't that they can't; the issue is that they don't want that. Why the sites with copied content exists? To earn money through ads. What earns Google money? Ads!
Any simple heuristic has false positives, meaning they'll end up taking down legitimate sites that had repeated content for a good reason.
Say, for example two sites quoting text from the us constitution. The second one to be crawled would be considered to be spam copying the first one and removed from web results. Then you'll get comments on hacker news complaining that Google is censoring it for political reasons.
And any simple heuristic is quickly reverse engineered by SEOs, who will find a way to mask it as legitimate.
They could use the heuristics to build a list of domains to block and then have someone review it. After doing it for a long time, they could build a neural model on top of that, and automate it.
As I have said, the reason they don't do it is not because they don't have the skills and know-how.
Having everything in one service definitely increases interoperability between those solutions, but it definitely decreases stability. In addition, each of the other systems is not the best in their class (I really detest GH Actions for example).
Why do so many solutions grow so big? Is it done to increase enterprise adoption?