As a joke I built an extension to the GitHub CLI called “omens” so you can run “gh omens” before you’re planning to use GitHub and it’ll tell you if it’s likely to work in idiomatic Aussie.
They really are bin chickens for a reason. I remember in Lakemba in Sydney watching a young child trying to shoo an ibis from a bin where it was having its lunch.
For a very long time I believed that they had migrated from Egypt because of their long beak - I think I asked my Mum once and she in tiredness just affirmed it.
Another useful disclaimer: all of these lets the developers push updates to your computer as they wish by default in most setups, these days you might want to decrease that kind of attack surface and just check the status in the official website when "git push" suddenly stop working. Especially when extensions and stuff sometimes changes hand and it's kind of hard to keep track of it, except for when something bad happens and gets news attention.
I'm also not sure why you'd share links to software you don't even recommend yourself? Isn't it better to just not share that then? I think others could use search engine/LLM too if they need whatever, but most generally expect things shared in the comments here to actually at least have been looked at by the person sharing them.
> "Why would you recommend extensions to do this?"
This is not my complaint though, my complain is:
Why would you recommend extensions you haven't tried nor even read about yourself?
The goal isn't to pick apart the message to piss someone off, the goal is prevent someone else than the author from getting hacked because they install some random extension, not understanding what kind of access you're giving others when doing so.
They didn't recommend the extensions. They linked them because they were "merely sharing to build on for this discussion".
Is all content in HN supposed to be professional and serious, or are humorous comments in fact allowed when discussing a market leading company who has had regular outages for a year and a half? (Yes, I know the actual reasons why GitHub are struggling.)
> Is all content in HN supposed to be professional and serious
No
> are humorous comments in fact allowed
Yes
Neither is what's going on here. It's reckless to share stuff you haven't even looked at yourself, that's fairly basic thing to care about. Sharing "here's a bunch of random GitHub repositories" isn't humor (I think?) nor would it been different if the text was "more professional and serious", whatever that means.
Why you so mad about someone trying to help others from getting hacked? Install all extensions you want, based on what someone recommend or what you find randomly on YouTube, but let others be educated about what that means for their own security, not sure who that hurts and why you'd wanna stop it.
I found it quite funny that people develop extensions that track the availability of one of the most important building blocks of the software industry, because their reliability is so poor.
You could have posted a warning to not actually install random extensions. Instead you came across as questioning why anyone would post links to them at all. The poster was clear they didn't actually recommend the extensions. Sharing stuff is fun, and hardly any software posted to HN is professionally reviewed beforehand anyway.
> The poster was clear they didn't actually recommend the extensions. Sharing stuff is fun
Sharing stuff we know are good is fun. Sharing just random stuff? No, why would you do that? The whole point is why would you share those extensions if you don't actually recommend them? It's noise, the opposite of why we all come here in the first place.
Do you also just submit whatever to HN as link submissions, without even reading it or checking it yourself?
... I intended to indicate more a Quantity concept, the existence of these links is to suggest that there is additional interest and effort out there in the human universe of developers, that this whole GitHub disruption services issue is worsening and we all here on this Hacker News thread are trodding a somewhat well-worn path.
And I apologize for not making that conclusion in my comment so as to stave off spinning out a tangential discussion unnecessarily.
Yes it's reckless to say that I trust these browser extensions and GitHub repos with my private information.
In this circumstance, and somewhat ironically because of the actual issue at hand of us not being able to trust GitHub when we need to trust GitHub in order to get through our daily triage burdens, but in this circumstance, I wrote that I did not trust these.
So, I'm sorry for the confusion that it's causing, but it's really an indicator, showing that other people are experiencing frustration around the friction between they themselves realizing something is not working, and them resolving the issue after going through a potentially lengthy process to figure out that it actually is their source control and remote developer automation tooling that is failing them.
So I didn't put that conclusion in my comment.
When you two, in this thread, talk about humor on hacker News, I see where you're going. I really should have just put a conclusion in my comment so that it staved off the wandering to help make my comment more comprehensible, more quickly.
Sorry to have blown as much mental energy as it did, obviously resulting in an unwelcome and toxic result.
Thank you Tim, yes, merely sharing is what I was doing.
I didn't say, and I probably should have said, "Use the fact that there are a number of these developer focused IDE/ browser extension tools as motivating information, about the emerging need to support human developers in there daily triage burdens, as is it's arguably a need .. a trend that is worsening."
> why you'd share links to software you don't even recommend yourself?
Overall, I disagree and think it's valid and responsible to share links to apps if I disclaimed that I don't recommend installing their linked applications in an environment that has access to private data.
One valid reason, to share links, is to illustrate that there are more than zero efforts to address this issue - the parent comment issue - through and even more convenient practice than firing up a web browser, following link, waiting for it to load, reviewing the material, to see if GitHub status is red or green today. So this reason attempts to build up the importance of the parent comment's idea, and suggests that legitimate verifiable work is advisable, to continue down that path of making it more convenient for developers have simpler, more human indicators about the reliability of their digital tools.
I have tabs from like 6 months ago. Modern browsers have gotten pretty good at hibernating unused tabs and restore when needed. And this website is extremely light, it gets restored in milliseconds.
The browser history contains a lot of junk and I don't want that saved forever. Curated tab history is a bit different. It's stupid for sure, but also a bit comforting to keep the most important articles and such. For anything I really care about, there's always ArchiveBox.
It's a step in the wrong direction but also token efficiency has become a focus relatively recently (just the past few weeks it seems like the zeitgeist has turned it's attention to efficiency) while work on this model probably started many many months ago. I would expect to see models released that focus on token efficiency in 6-12 months
While I agree it is predominantly text getting sent over the wire, it would be pretty complex to implement harness on just a text stream without the websocket abstraction (I thought about it for a while). If you want to just SSH and run an agent you can, but the point of harness is that it has better ergonomics than a bare terminal can provide
Agreed - my intention is definitely not "harness on every server" and more "make it easy for the backend half of harness to run on your personal dev box". This just comes from my experience at BigTechCorp where all of the engineers (myself included) used beefy EC2 instances for development (so tests ran fast, lol) and VSCode remote to actually edit files
I've just installed a raspbery pi zero w/limited memory, and having to constantly correct the local model because it can't ssh correctly is annoying; but I can't install any kind of harness on it.
Being able to just keep a single instance and only worry about transport protocols would be a bonus.
When I built harness IDE one of the core goals was to stop having to leave my laptop open all the time while my agents finished the refactor.
Launching today is harness' SSH bootstrap mode. It works very similarly to VSCode's "connect to remote" feature. Select SSH connection you already have configured, it will connect, install the harness server in ~/.harness, and then the UI will connect over websocket.
Would love feedback if anyone gets a chance to try it out
This is awesome! Some feedback - I can't tell anywhere from the website if there is mobile support (which is a must-have if I want to consider moving my company or friends over to this)
It is indeed planned, but in the meantime it does also have first-class PWA support, so you can easily install the webapp as a mobile app on mobile devices. Works great on Android.
Chatto currently commits to providing a strong PWA experience that also works great on mobile (including full support for voice and video calls, push notifications, the works.)
I am aware though that a lot of people would prefer an app that they can install, so this will be coming at some point -- just not a huge priority at the current point in the project's timeline.
Note that to send notifications to an iOS app, the app publisher has to send them. This means that they need to run an event forwarding proxy service (this is how Mattermost and Element/Matrix and presumably some/all of the ActivityPub clients do it), or selfhosting your server means you must also selfpublish your client app via the App Store and Apple’s developer program tax.
For Mastodon, each mobile app developer needs to have a "webpush relay server" to receive Mastodon's webpush notifications and transmit them to the platform's push service. For Android, Mastodon recently added support for the latest webpush standard which allows the app developer to directly register Google's webpush endpoint with Mastodon, removing the need for a relay.
In all cases, push notifications are encrypted by the Mastodon server, and decrypted by the Mastodon client, so any intermediaries (relay server, push notification service) can not read their content.
Also, toss in a quick description. I couldn't tell quickly from the post or site what Chatto _is_. I guessed a vibe coded LLM TUI because that's the new hotness. In a world of Yggdrasil and Immich and Czkawka, a very brief intro helps!
Agreed - They are definitely doing this price change ahead of the Steam Machine on purpose, to anchor that price better.
That said there is hope for the Steam Machine to at least be similarly priced. I'd expect the COGS to come in cheaper than the deck because it doesn't have a screen, battery, joysticks etc and it's likely easier to assemble in general
If I didn't love my Steam Deck I would consider re-selling it for profit. This feels like the same thing that happened to used car resale prices during covid. For a year or two you could sell the used car you just bought for a profit
This happened to me recently with a few providers. Their billing teams got aggressive and I said fuck it and AI coded a replacement in a few nights/weekends. For me it was: Temporal, Zapier and DocuSign
I strongly believe the build/buy equation is much different in 2026 than it was in 2024
Yeah, this is the absolute last thing I'd vibecode. This is one step above sending your LLM to represent you in front of a court when you're accused of murder.
Totally in agreement with you and the previous commenter. It's not a full re-write. I took an open source project (DocuSeal) and customized it for our needs
That said - Docusign has a moat because people are afraid (and CYA) by using them instead of anything else. To make an eSignature legal isn't really that complex, you just need hash based attribution, some timestamps and some ToS.
Replacing Docusign with something else is no where close to having an AI represent you in court
Hi - I built Harness [1] as a reaction to the closed source IDEs that keep popping up (Antigravity/Conductor/Cursor). I wanted something better than those that is also community supported.
Harness is an agent first IDE built around git worktrees. It's designed to make it easy to organize a bunch of Claude Code sessions for all the different projects you are tackling right now
It supports macOS and Linux. And experimentally it allows separating your frontend & backend so that the agent runtimes can live in a dev box while the UI can run on your laptop.
Remote dev box is brand new in the last release so let me know if it works... happy to help you set it up (I personally run w/remote dev box) shoot me an email
looks awesome! very interesting how similar these tools all look. i do think we're at an intermediate state here with the current UI where it doesn't scale as well for the future where triggering agents and review becomes much more important than the writing code part.
And headless server support! I have gotten a lot of request to let people run the agent on a separate dev box (in the cloud or some pc gathering dust in the corner). The frontend/backend are decoupled so you can run the agents on a totally separate machine than the GUI is running.
If you have any other problems/concerns/issues/suggestions/etc, reach out!
