This comment is completely unnecessary and adds nothing to the discussion. How is the author publishing source code on his own github repo "burdening the public".

Your comment was egregiously hostile, and you're breaking the Show HN guidelines.

Currently, you're polluting the discussion for this submission by continuing to post in the subthread of an already-flagged comment.

Please stop.

I would have used the Mozilla docs as a more official reference.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status

You want to bring up pollution, what about the plethora of http status reference sites we already have. At least OP kept it to CLI. It’d be nice if it sourced it from Mozilla so it wouldn’t need updating.

The recommendation does not hold up when scrutinised.

MDN is also third-party, thus equally unofficial. The official sources are IANA and IETF.

The quality is objectively worse compared with webconcepts. It's not immediately visible where a status code originates from, and when you follow through to the detail document, you can see that the outdated RFC 2616 is referenced.

More official than hosted by some rando on GitHub pages with a .info domain.

The "rando" is a long term contributor to Web specifications.

The choice of top-level domain has zero significance, as I said previously, the only measure of official(?:ness|ity) is where the information originates from.

Completely agree. The pollution metaphor is apt: Not only the cognitive cost of looking over this code, realizing it’s displaying a CSV, and offering advice but also the real CO2 cost of hosting, packaging, distributing, running, and maintaining this code. Truly progressive devs should always consider these costs.