Actions are bad, but they're free (to start) and just good enough that they're useful to set up something quick and dirty, and tempt you to try and scale it for a little while.
Which, as far as I found so far, means Forgejo. Haven't found any others. And even Forgejo Actions says that it's mostly the same as Github Actions syntax, meaning you still have to double-check that everything still works the same. It probably will, but if you don't know what the corner cases are then you have to double-check everything. Still, it's probably the best migration option if you rely on GHA.
Team scale doesn't tend to impact this that much, since as teams grow they naturally specialize in parts of the codebase. Shared libs can be hotspots, I've heard horror stories at large orgs about this sort of thing, though usually those shared libs have strong gatekeeping that makes the problem more one of functionality living where it shouldn't to avoid gatekeeping than a shared lib blowing up due to bad change set merges.
This was a follow-on to a study of nurses showing coffee drinkers have lower all cause mortality.
Caffeine has been shown to exert effects via adenosine receptor antagonism and influence on cAMP & AMPK pathways. These same pathways are implicated in a lot of issues with aging. Caffeine also has some anti-inflammatory properties and Coffee beans are a strong anti-oxidant though I don't really think that matters much.
> Caffeine has been shown to exert effects via adenosine receptor antagonism and influence on cAMP & AMPK pathways. These same pathways are implicated in a lot of issues with aging.
That is like saying biological pathways are implicated in aging (because you said "pathways").
In any case, adenosine receptor antagonism has a pretty weak link if any to aging.
Additionally, we say that about virtually everything that is herbal, that it has anti-inflammatory properties. You are right, it does not matter at all.
The Bun acquisition made a little sense, Boris wanted Daddy Jarred to come clean up his mess, and Jarred is 100% able to deliver.
This doesn't make as much sense. OpenAI has a better low level engineering team and they don't have a hot mess with traction like Anthropic did. This seems more about acquiring people with dev ergonomics vision to push product direction, which I don't see being a huge win.
They do have a hot mess with traction amongst developers. Codex is far behind Claude Code (in both the GUI and TUI forms), and OpenAI's chief of applications recently announced a pivot to focus more on "productivity" (i.e. software and enterprise verticals) because B2B yields a lot more revenue than B2C.
I've been trying to beat this drum for a minute now. Your code quality is a function of validation time, and you have a finite amount of that which isn't increased by better orchestration.
And when the PR you never even read because the AI wrote it gets bounced back you with an obscure question 13 days later ..... you're not going to be well positioned to respond to that.
Skills are just prompts, so policy doesn't apply there. MCP isn't giving you any special policy control there, it's just a capability border. You could do the same thing with a service mesh or any other capability compartmentalization technique.
The only value in MCP is that it's intended "for agents" and it has traction.
reply