Wouldn’t it be great though if you could kill content from the internet by simply removing the source. Privacy concerns would probably become less of an issue.
You pull the content down not to try to put the cat back in the bag. You pull the content down to show your source that it was an honest mistake and you aren't trying to capitalize on the "scoop".
If I could ever get over the fact that they are using Wordpress, I still wouldn't be able to explain how a single person can set dates and publish stories on their own?!
I don't work for TNW and have never written for them, but web editing often works like this:
1.) Author submits an article often as a word file.
2.) Editor starts working on the word file.
3.) Author and editor do 1-5 rounds of edits using track changes.
4.) Editor says "Great, post it to run at xx:xx on mm-dd."
5.) The author actually logs in and makes the post.
If you're thinking that technology we use every day could solve this problem, you're right! Alas, it's harder to fix years of habits than the technical issues behind the habits.
I worked on a project to replace a Wordpress content site. The tech team selected React + Redux + NoSQL + microservices + all the other hip words. It took 12 months and cost 1.2 million dollars to build, and turned out to be feature equivalent to the original Wordpress site that was built in under a month. Sometimes Wordpress is the right answer.
You require someone to verify the date. Then the verifier accepts them without looking because they've never been wrong before, and then we're right back where we started, except with more people to blame.
On the other hand, it's also "Oops, GitHub will never give us an embargoed announcement again, and a lot of other companies will probably follow suit."
Accidental breaches do happen; they're embarrassing, but not critical. Deliberately or repeatedly breaching embargos will quickly put you on a blacklist. Nobody is going to provide you with embargoed press releases if they don't trust you.
"embargo" means Github gave this news to this outlet (and others) early, to be able to work on quotes and stuff. By breaking the embargo, accidentally or not, a possible ramification is getting fewer embargos in the future, if an outlet proves they can't be trusted.
I wonder if they reached out to GitHub to see if they felt it was alright to keep this up? Might be good if the author could clarify! Either way, really cool news.
Definitely cool news, even if it is a max of 3 contributors. I'd have liked to seen that a little higher, but they surely know what they're basing that number on.
It's not enough to pull me from GitLab just yet, but if I keep having 10MB+ issues there, I'll switch.
Don't know what it is exactly. But definitely within the last year, I'll occasionally add a >10MB pdf or something and can't push that commit up, broken socket everytime. Same thing occasionally happens with a coworker. I 'fix' it by having someone else push the file, then delete the offending commit.
Happens with bash in windows or GitHub Desktop. No one has ever been able to fix it. I have just tried to not use large files.
Yea, IDK. I’ll watch for it again, but in the meantime; it’s very nice to have the CEO of gitlab ask me about my silly large file problem :) If I ever consider leaving Gitlab I’ll weight this exchange against that.
