u/Time-Water-8428

I’ve been backing Codeberg for a while now. I’ve donated, migrated a bunch of my repos over from GitHub, and constantly recommended it to people who wanted a non-profit, privacy-respecting Git forge.

So reading their recent blog post and seeing their vote to ban "vibe-coded" or heavy LLM projects in their Terms of Use legitimately pissed me off.

It is an absurd policy. It mixes up a basic infrastructure problem, uses completely dishonest statistics to justify gatekeeping, and ironically ends up pushing developers directly back into Microsoft’s arms.

1. Banning tools instead of setting quotas makes zero sense

The practical argument Codeberg makes is that "ghost projects" created by AI are clogging their CI/CD runners, eating up disk space, and getting hammered by scrapers.

Fair enough, server administration is hard. But since when do you solve infrastructure abuse by banning developer tools instead of setting resource limits?

If people are abusing free runners or taking up too much disk space, you cap runner minutes per user and enforce strict storage quotas. That’s how GitHub and GitLab handled it. Low-effort, unmaintained junk repos have been getting pushed to open source since the SourceForge days. Trying to police how someone writes code instead of just setting hard limits on bandwidth and storage is administrative insanity. If a solo dev writes a clean, fully-tested Rust tool in an afternoon using Claude, why on earth does Codeberg care as long as it stays under their storage cap?

2. The stats in their blog post are completely dishonest

They go on this massive rant about data center energy, SSD prices, and water usage in Frankfurt to frame AI code as an environmental crime. The logic falls apart the second you look at actual data.

They literally complain about enterprise SSD prices jumping from €700 to €3,700 and blame LLM projects on their site. No, enterprise NVMe prices didn't spike because some hobbyist used Copilot to write a bash script. They spiked because Big Tech hyperscalers like Microsoft, Meta, and Google are dropping over $150 Billion a year in hardware CapEx to build massive clusters.

Same story with their energy and water claims. According to the IEA, global data centers account for roughly 1% to 1.5% of global electricity. As for water? Data center cooling is a fraction of a percent of industrial water use—compared to something like US golf courses which consume 1.5 billion gallons of water every single day. Blaming open-source devs using AI assistants for Frankfurt's grid problems (in a country that shut down its own zero-carbon nuclear plants) is pure bad faith.

3. Linus gets it.

The post assumes that any code written with an LLM is automatically unmaintainable slop. That just shows they haven't paid attention to how modern dev workflows actually look.

Frontier models like Claude 3.5 Sonnet hit over 80-90% accuracy on benchmarks like SWE-bench. People aren't just blindly pasting hallucinated code anymore. Developers use these tools to generate unit tests, write documentation, catch edge cases, and refactor legacy code way faster than they could alone. It raises the floor for solo maintainers.

Linus Torvalds called this out on LKML:

> "AI is a tool, just like other tools we use... But the solution is not to put your head in the sand and sing 'La La La, I can't hear you'... The solution is to make sure those LLM tools help maintainers instead of just causing them pain."

If the creator of the Linux kernel can understand that AI is just a tool that helps maintainers catch embarrassing bugs, why is Codeberg acting like using a coding assistant is a crime against open source?

This just pushes people back to GitHub

FOSS is supposed to be about democratising software and empowering individuals. LLMs give solo devs and non-native English speakers the leverage to build ambitious projects that used to require a whole team.

By declaring that AI-assisted workflows are unwanted "pollution" on Codeberg, they aren't stopping people from using AI. They are just telling those developers: "Go back to GitHub."

How does driving talented builders right back into Microsoft's proprietary ecosystem protect the open-source commons? It does the exact opposite. It enforces an ideological purity test that guarantees Codeberg stays a niche side project while GitHub keeps its monopoly.

Codeberg needs to protect its servers with proper quotas, rate limits, and bot mitigation. This tool-banning nonsense is a massive mistake.

I’ve been backing Codeberg for a while now. I’ve donated, migrated a bunch of my repos over from GitHub, and constantly recommended it to people who wanted a non-profit, privacy-respecting Git forge.

So reading their recent blog post and seeing their vote to ban "vibe-coded" or heavy LLM projects in their Terms of Use legitimately pissed me off.

It is an absurd policy. It mixes up a basic infrastructure problem, uses completely dishonest statistics to justify gatekeeping, and ironically ends up pushing developers directly back into Microsoft’s arms.

1. Banning tools instead of setting quotas makes zero sense

The practical argument Codeberg makes is that "ghost projects" created by AI are clogging their CI/CD runners, eating up disk space, and getting hammered by scrapers.

Fair enough, server administration is hard. But since when do you solve infrastructure abuse by banning developer tools instead of setting resource limits?

If people are abusing free runners or taking up too much disk space, you cap runner minutes per user and enforce strict storage quotas. That’s how GitHub and GitLab handled it. Low-effort, unmaintained junk repos have been getting pushed to open source since the SourceForge days. Trying to police how someone writes code instead of just setting hard limits on bandwidth and storage is administrative insanity. If a solo dev writes a clean, fully-tested Rust tool in an afternoon using Claude, why on earth does Codeberg care as long as it stays under their storage cap?

2. The stats in their blog post are completely dishonest

They go on this massive rant about data center energy, SSD prices, and water usage in Frankfurt to frame AI code as an environmental crime. The logic falls apart the second you look at actual data.

They literally complain about enterprise SSD prices jumping from €700 to €3,700 and blame LLM projects on their site. No, enterprise NVMe prices didn't spike because some hobbyist used Copilot to write a bash script. They spiked because Big Tech hyperscalers like Microsoft, Meta, and Google are dropping over $150 Billion a year in hardware CapEx to build massive clusters.

Same story with their energy and water claims. According to the IEA, global data centers account for roughly 1% to 1.5% of global electricity. As for water? Data center cooling is a fraction of a percent of industrial water use—compared to something like US golf courses which consume 1.5 billion gallons of water every single day. Blaming open-source devs using AI assistants for Frankfurt's grid problems (in a country that shut down its own zero-carbon nuclear plants) is pure bad faith.

3. Linus gets it.

The post assumes that any code written with an LLM is automatically unmaintainable slop. That just shows they haven't paid attention to how modern dev workflows actually look.

Frontier models like Claude 3.5 Sonnet hit over 80-90% accuracy on benchmarks like SWE-bench. People aren't just blindly pasting hallucinated code anymore. Developers use these tools to generate unit tests, write documentation, catch edge cases, and refactor legacy code way faster than they could alone. It raises the floor for solo maintainers.

Linus Torvalds called this out on LKML:

> "AI is a tool, just like other tools we use... But the solution is not to put your head in the sand and sing 'La La La, I can't hear you'... The solution is to make sure those LLM tools help maintainers instead of just causing them pain."

If the creator of the Linux kernel can understand that AI is just a tool that helps maintainers catch embarrassing bugs, why is Codeberg acting like using a coding assistant is a crime against open source?

This just pushes people back to GitHub

FOSS is supposed to be about democratising software and empowering individuals. LLMs give solo devs and non-native English speakers the leverage to build ambitious projects that used to require a whole team.

By declaring that AI-assisted workflows are unwanted "pollution" on Codeberg, they aren't stopping people from using AI. They are just telling those developers: "Go back to GitHub."

How does driving talented builders right back into Microsoft's proprietary ecosystem protect the open-source commons? It does the exact opposite. It enforces an ideological purity test that guarantees Codeberg stays a niche side project while GitHub keeps its monopoly.

Codeberg needs to protect its servers with proper quotas, rate limits, and bot mitigation. This tool-banning nonsense is a massive mistake.

I’ve been backing Codeberg for a while now. I’ve donated, migrated a bunch of my repos over from GitHub, and constantly recommended it to people who wanted a non-profit, privacy-respecting Git forge.

So reading their recent blog post and seeing their vote to ban "vibe-coded" or heavy LLM projects in their Terms of Use legitimately pissed me off.

It is an absurd policy. It mixes up a basic infrastructure problem, uses completely dishonest statistics to justify gatekeeping, and ironically ends up pushing developers directly back into Microsoft’s arms.

1. Banning tools instead of setting quotas makes zero sense

The practical argument Codeberg makes is that "ghost projects" created by AI are clogging their CI/CD runners, eating up disk space, and getting hammered by scrapers.

Fair enough, server administration is hard. But since when do you solve infrastructure abuse by banning developer tools instead of setting resource limits?

If people are abusing free runners or taking up too much disk space, you cap runner minutes per user and enforce strict storage quotas. That’s how GitHub and GitLab handled it. Low-effort, unmaintained junk repos have been getting pushed to open source since the SourceForge days. Trying to police how someone writes code instead of just setting hard limits on bandwidth and storage is administrative insanity. If a solo dev writes a clean, fully-tested Rust tool in an afternoon using Claude, why on earth does Codeberg care as long as it stays under their storage cap?

2. The stats in their blog post are completely dishonest

They go on this massive rant about data center energy, SSD prices, and water usage in Frankfurt to frame AI code as an environmental crime. The logic falls apart the second you look at actual data.

They literally complain about enterprise SSD prices jumping from €700 to €3,700 and blame LLM projects on their site. No, enterprise NVMe prices didn't spike because some hobbyist used Copilot to write a bash script. They spiked because Big Tech hyperscalers like Microsoft, Meta, and Google are dropping over $150 Billion a year in hardware CapEx to build massive clusters.

Same story with their energy and water claims. According to the IEA, global data centers account for roughly 1% to 1.5% of global electricity. As for water? Data center cooling is a fraction of a percent of industrial water use—compared to something like US golf courses which consume 1.5 billion gallons of water every single day. Blaming open-source devs using AI assistants for Frankfurt's grid problems (in a country that shut down its own zero-carbon nuclear plants) is pure bad faith.

3. Linus gets it.

The post assumes that any code written with an LLM is automatically unmaintainable slop. That just shows they haven't paid attention to how modern dev workflows actually look.

Frontier models like Claude 3.5 Sonnet hit over 80-90% accuracy on benchmarks like SWE-bench. People aren't just blindly pasting hallucinated code anymore. Developers use these tools to generate unit tests, write documentation, catch edge cases, and refactor legacy code way faster than they could alone. It raises the floor for solo maintainers.

Linus Torvalds called this out on LKML:

> "AI is a tool, just like other tools we use... But the solution is not to put your head in the sand and sing 'La La La, I can't hear you'... The solution is to make sure those LLM tools help maintainers instead of just causing them pain."

If the creator of the Linux kernel can understand that AI is just a tool that helps maintainers catch embarrassing bugs, why is Codeberg acting like using a coding assistant is a crime against open source?

This just pushes people back to GitHub

FOSS is supposed to be about democratising software and empowering individuals. LLMs give solo devs and non-native English speakers the leverage to build ambitious projects that used to require a whole team.

By declaring that AI-assisted workflows are unwanted "pollution" on Codeberg, they aren't stopping people from using AI. They are just telling those developers: "Go back to GitHub."

How does driving talented builders right back into Microsoft's proprietary ecosystem protect the open-source commons? It does the exact opposite. It enforces an ideological purity test that guarantees Codeberg stays a niche side project while GitHub keeps its monopoly.

Codeberg needs to protect its servers with proper quotas, rate limits, and bot mitigation. This tool-banning nonsense is a massive mistake.

With little atmospheric drag how will the upcoming lunar constellation work?

Hi all, not expecting much to come out of this, but at this point, I am feeling completely hopeless, desperate, and mentally exhausted. My inspiration for creating a public post was a thread I recently found by u/No_Motor_6299 whose long-standing account was finally returned after making noise publicly ("12-year-old Microsoft account permanently locked 2 weeks after being hacked and recovered"). Interestingly, u/No_Motor_6299 explicitly mentioned that his own inspiration for going public was a previous successful case shared by u/planetgrayarea. My 15-year-old account that was compromised has been returned back to me today.

Following in their footsteps, this is my story about my Microsoft account—originally created nearly 11 years ago—which is currently suspended, and my absolute nightmare dealing with their executive support.

Back in 2022, my account was compromised by a hacker. Immediately after taking over, they locked me out, changed my security information, and altered my primary alias to a completely different email address.

I didn't give up. I spent years gathering information and recently managed to escalate my case to the highest possible tier: the Executive Customer Relations (ECR) team. I even managed to overcome severe social anxiety to complete a live identity verification phone call with a support manager, who explicitly confirmed that my situation and explanations were entirely plausible.

Following their instructions, I compiled a massive, airtight document containing irrefutable historical evidence that only the original creator could ever possess:

1. The exact worldwide unique PayPal Transaction ID and the original Mojang invoice for my Minecraft purchase, billed in my local currency and tied to my family's payment details.
2. A list of multiple historical IP addresses spanning over several years, covering my original home internet connections and registration region, including down-to-the-minute timestamps of my very first password changes years ago.
3. Original un-falsifiable screenshots matching those exact system notifications from the year the account was created, along with historical console hardware details and linked third-party apps.

Despite this mountain of absolute financial and technical proof, the Relationship Manager just sent me this completely generic, cold rejection email:

>

This makes absolutely no sense and feels incredibly insulting. Of course some current data points don't match what is currently on their active record—the hacker changed the alias and cycled through multiple phone numbers (including virtual generators) after I spammed them out of anger! But a unique banking transaction code from years ago cannot be faked or guessed by an intruder.

It feels like human specialists are blindly relying on broken automated scripts without looking at the actual legal and financial evidence. This situation has taken a massive toll on my mental health, and being stonewalled by the "highest tier" of support after providing everything they asked for is incredibly defeating.

My account has almost 11 years of memories, purchases, and personal data attached to it. I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am the rightful owner.

If anyone here has any advice, knows a workaround, or has any contact with a Microsoft employee, executive, or community manager who can perform a manual override on a blocked account, I would deeply appreciate your help.

TL;DR:

• My 11-year-old Microsoft account was compromised in 2022 by a hacker who changed the security info.
• I escalated the case to Microsoft's Executive Customer Relations (ECR) and did a live phone verification.
• I provided absolute historical proof: multiple local IP logs with exact timestamps and the original unique PayPal/Mojang transaction ID for Minecraft.
• Microsoft ECR still archived the ticket using a generic copy-pasted script because the data doesn't match the current hacker-modified template. [3]
• Looking for any advice or internal escalation paths to get a real human to review the banking evidence.

Edit: My original deleted post, which was an inspiration of Planetgrayarea and No_motors got deleted on r/Xbox. My 11-year-old Microsoft account is permanently locked after being compromised by a hacker and handled by ECR support

Thanks, everyone, for reading. <3

With a Canadian going last time which country should send up somebody if NASA allows? I heard the UK might send up John McFall?

It is based on the Roman system and was designed for a system before centralised vote-counting was simple, by separating out power rigging is harder and elections are generally fairer, it is also very hard to change a system that has worked fine for millennia.

Do modern technologies make it a good idea to change this system or not?

Regarding the current political landscape in the US, and it feels like the system has grown incredibly polarised compared to previous decades. A lot of this shift seems driven by the political left. It feels like the Democratic Party has moved significantly further to the left, adopting positions on immigration and gender identity that would have been considered fringe or highly unconventional not too long ago. This has then sparked a response from the right, are any of the parties moderate anymore?