As usual for online censorship, Techdirt has had excellent coverage for years: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/baroness-beeban-kidron/

Django's was July 2005: https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2005/jul/15/chipy/

It doesn't have a checksum, though, that seems like an improvement that's worth a few bytes.

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.

> The government’s position is that I should have known I couldn’t trade stocks I’d publicly praised—for some unspecified period of time. I didn’t lie, I simply traded too soon.

The criminal complaint is here, allegations begin on page 7: https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/andrew-le...

The part Left seems to be responding to in his article is:

> defendant LEFT often built his positions using inexpensive, short-dated options contracts that would expire within zero to five trading days and submitted limit orders to close his positions as soon as the Targeted Security reached a certain price.

The generic term for the government's allegations is not "the opposite of insider trading", it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump

Example: https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/commit/9e99fbf1d3cc441e...

18F: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18F Overview of the related programs: https://willslack.com/pif-18f-usds/

(A warning about Odd Lots: the hosts never question or push back on people talking their book. This especially bad with politicians and political appointees, who are often very creative during their interviews.)

I'm aware of the early difference between compiled and interpreted languages. Luau has to be interpreted to meet its security goals, and I'm asking with similar goals in mind, so I guess I'm starting from that significant limitation.

Why were the users so entitled to free ongoing maintenance that its end is worth describing using a term from financial fraud?

It's very frustrating to have a tool that has spent 15 years fading into the background of reliable infrastructure become an intrusive, distracting mess.

After a couple months with jujutsu it's almost completely replaced my use of git. It’s a lot to hope for, but just as jujutsu surveyed a couple decades of VCS to syncretize a huge improvement, I do hope someone will do the same for collaborating with jujutsu. GitHub PRs feel very unfortunately frozen in amber because their popularity makes it very hard to fix the core UI design problems it has with multiple tabs, incoherent timeline, edited commits, missing "8 more comments", and now a steady drip of SPA jank.

The big remaining feature of GitHub is the network effect of coworkers and potential contributors already being logged in, and there could be a race between a competitor neutralizing that with bidirectional sync (see git-bug) and GitHub getting their usability problems sorted. Microsoft's legendary resistance to breaking changes means there's a very big window available.