GitHub cuts short offer to burn repos on CD after mockery ensues 34%

By Joab Jackson0%

7/6/2026, 6:46:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Unattributed Quote, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 38.8% saturation with 282 hits. Analysis detected 2,238 faulty-reasoning hits from 726 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.7% and a BS Rank of 34% (14,635 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.90% of the article peer group.

You’re too late! 
Monday was the last day to score your own free CD of your GitHub repository, which the Microsoft-owned subsidiary offered to mail to the first 1,000 people who asked. 
But as of noon eastern time, that offer has been withdrawn (if it was ever genuine) after sparking confusion and ridicule. 
Last Thursday, GitHub issued a short notice on X extending an offer: 
In light of recent developments in physical media, GitHub is proud to announce that you can now obtain your public repo on CD-ROM. 
Keep it. 
Lend it to friends. 
Pass it on to your children. 
Your code is physically yours, forever. 
Until you lose it, let's be real. 
Order yours today. 
What “recent developments” the company referred to is anyone’s guess, though it implied that it came about as some sort of public pressure: “We heard you. 
And we agree,” the X missive began. 
(“No one fucking asked for this” one commenter retorted). 
Many media outlets, including Tom’s Hardware and Destructoid, speculated that GitHub’s offer was actually a jab at Sony for discontinuing optical media for its PlayStation consoles in 2028. 
GitHub was not alone in its mockery of the Sony announcement. 
Nintendo and other companies responded. 
Even the Spanish arm of the KFC fast food chain took aim at Sony on social media, mockingly announcing it would no longer offer its “physical format” (“ÚLTIMA HORA: KFC dejará de ofrecer su formato físico a partir de hoy.”). 
But the GitHub joke came with an action item, and that’s where the trouble started. 
The original GitHub message included a link to a Microsoft form (gh.io/cd) where one could provide details as to where to send their CD. 
The form stated that it would accept applications for the first 1,000 people who applied, until July 6. 
It asked for a GitHub user name, repo URL, and the requester’s shipping address and phone number. 
The form was taken offline as of press time, though the tweet (or X post) remains intact. 
GitHub did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 
Pity the poor intern 
If the offer is indeed a troll on the part of GitHub and Microsoft, it is indeed an odd one, and not just because fulfilling the requests would involve a lot of work on the part of GitHub’s mail room and the troll-master’s minions who would presumably be responsible for burning all those CDs. 
Does anyone at GitHub even have a CD burner? 
That was one of the questions we wanted to ask Github. 
MORE CONTEXT 
Git good with Epic Games' new open source VCS, Lore 
GitHub pulls pin on npm's auto-run scripts 
Python JIT compiler project under threat after steering council says proper process wasn't followed 
Microsoft Build News: Surface RTX Spark Dev Box, Coreutils for Windows, air-gapped GitHub and more 
And GitHub/Microsoft best be careful about throwing disks around. 
However controversial its decision, Sony does have the velocity of technology development behind its decision. 
“This transition will enable us to align more closely with how most of our community prefers to access and play games today,” read a Sony statement. 
Today, about 85% of all games sold are downloads, Sony has reported in its financials. 
Shooting fish in a barrel 
The original announcement quickly got ratioed, as the kids are wont to say, by mockery of GitHub’s many recent outages. 
“They have to ship you CDs because the website is barely up,” one commenter wrote. 
“Why we need github when you can run remote repo on CD” another piped in. 
Also, the CD format is an oddly archaic format to base a protest from, especially coming from a parent company that got its start distributing OSes by floppy discs. 
Moreover, there are plenty of open source projects whose repos could easily overfill the 700 MB limit of a burnable CD. 
One, for instance, is Google Chrome repo, which open source developer Dmitriy Kovalenko said he requested a copy of. 
“Let’s see how they ship 66G repo on a CD,” he wrote on X. 
Far more problematic is that GitHub also faces the very real danger that users  those still with disc readers  would actually find such an artifact genuinely useful. 
“Stop taunting people for desiring physical media that they control” someone else commented. 
® 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 3.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.7%Joab Jackson: 3.2%The Register: 3.2%Availability Heuristic12.7%This article: 4.0%Joab Jackson: 1.0%The Register: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.0%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Joab Jackson: 3.8%The Register: 5.0%Framing Effect6.9%This article: 7.4%Joab Jackson: 1.9%The Register: 0.7%Loss Aversion7.4%This article: 4.0%Joab Jackson: 1.0%The Register: 0.8%Status Quo Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Joab Jackson: 1.5%The Register: 3.0%Optimism Bias6.1%This article: 17.1%Joab Jackson: 4.3%The Register: 2.6%Pessimism Bias17.1%This article: 38.8%Joab Jackson: 10.4%The Register: 8.2%Negativity Bias38.8%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Joab Jackson: 0.5%The Register: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error2.1%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Joab Jackson: 0.4%The Register: 0.4%In-Group Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.8%Joab Jackson: 1.2%The Register: 1.9%Recency Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Joab Jackson: 2.7%The Register: 0.7%Ad Hominem8.7%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.7%Joab Jackson: 2.7%The Register: 4.2%Appeal to Authority8.7%This article: 2.1%Joab Jackson: 0.5%The Register: 1.7%False Dilemma2.1%This article: 7.4%Joab Jackson: 1.9%The Register: 1.2%Slippery Slope7.4%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.0%Joab Jackson: 3.0%The Register: 6.2%Hasty Generalization12.0%This article: 2.6%Joab Jackson: 0.7%The Register: 0.3%Red Herring2.6%This article: 8.3%Joab Jackson: 3.0%The Register: 0.7%Bandwagon8.3%This article: 9.5%Joab Jackson: 2.7%The Register: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion9.5%This article: 3.6%Joab Jackson: 2.8%The Register: 0.9%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 15.0%Joab Jackson: 3.8%The Register: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.0%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.0%Joab Jackson: 1.0%The Register: 0.3%Composition/Division4.0%This article: 8.4%Joab Jackson: 2.1%The Register: 2.2%Anecdotal8.4%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.5%Joab Jackson: 5.0%The Register: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.5%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.2%Joab Jackson: 1.1%The Register: 0.1%Personal Incredulity1.2%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 7.4%Joab Jackson: 1.9%The Register: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy7.4%This article: 20.2%Joab Jackson: 6.5%The Register: 2.3%Unattributed Quote20.2%This article: 8.5%Joab Jackson: 2.4%The Register: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection8.5%This article: 33.3%Joab Jackson: 20.3%The Register: 7.3%Biased Writer Voice33.3%This article: 5.2%Joab Jackson: 1.3%The Register: 1.5%Indoctrination5.2%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joab Jackson: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 20.1%Joab Jackson: 5.1%The Register: 2.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…20.1%

726 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers16%attributed speech608writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageGitHub • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageKFC • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 54 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSony • 26 words • 100.0% coverageSony • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageDmitriy Kovalenko • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

KFC

100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words34% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+96.4 ptsWriter: 3.6%KFC: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+91.4 ptsWriter: 8.6%KFC: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-39.8 ptsWriter: 39.8%KFC: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -20.2 ptsWriter: 20.2%KFC: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%KFC: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.