Not weighing in on this specific rewrite but tests are how you specify that your software works correctly. If a behavior isn’t covered by an automated test in some form you can’t assert that any given change doesn’t break it.
I think it is completely reasonable to use a preexisting unmodified test suite to state that something is working. The larger the project the more true this becomes. Real world production scars are documented and guarded against in the test suite otherwise those lessons get lost.
Also SQLite is legendary for its massive test suite and extensive fuzzing. They have 590x the amount of test code and scripts than normal code. Source: https://sqlite.org/testing.html
They have all the endpoint protection stuff on this machine. It just seems to run better. Or it could just be that the M5 is doing laps around the Windows workstations but I didn’t think they were that far off looking at the spec sheets. They didn’t cheap out on the Windows side.
If your workflow benefits from the speed it quickly pays for itself when factoring in developer salaries here in the US. I recently switched companies and they bought me an M5 Max 128GB as my dev machine.
Builds and local test runs are 3 times faster than the Windows laptop option. The machine will pay for itself just based on that within 3 months. I can spin up a local kubernetes cluster and do full integration tests while I am working on other things as well.
It isn’t a strictly Mac vs Windows thing though. It looks like the culprit is the MDM software on the Windows machines is just crazy slow and constantly getting in the way.
If I was paid less it would definitely make less sense for the company to pay for this machine.
Yeah taxis in the capital and small people movers to go from hotel to beach is where these will shine. EVs are especially well suited to stop and go traffic as well.
People are so caught up trying to solve every use case at once. Dropping pollution caused by old taxis in city centers will be a big win for Mexico if they can hit their price point. At the price they are quoting fleet operators can buy 2 and have their drivers swap out mid-day during their lunch.
They need to split paying customers off onto dedicated infrastructure. I know that you get that with some enterprise offerings but I don’t believe the normal paying customers get that treatment.
It’s clear they have massive scaling challenges but to not tier or isolate your paying customers from the free plan users seems a bit odd. Just my 2cents though.
After adding an adversarial review gate to implementation plans and code I saw large uptick in quality. I use Opus 4.8 as plan writer and orchestrator. For adversarial reviewer I use GPT 5.5.
I still find things to tweak and fix up but the amount dropped pretty dramatically. As always I am responsible for what I ship so I review and test everything of course. I still think we are a ways away from fully automated software forge but what is currently possible is pretty cool.
Look at SpaceXs filing. There is one but it is super short. I was just pointing out that 365day lockup is likely incorrect and OP doesn’t really know that until the filing is approved and becomes public.
Until recently companies that IPOed weren’t immediately added to the major indexes so there was a longer period for price discovery. This year that changed; so you have retirement funds that typically are more conservative acting as exit liquidity for these massive IPOs.
I would have less of an issue if the inclusion in major indexes was delayed 6-12months but we are looking at inclusion within like 5 days for some of these indexes.
Going to give the benefit of the doubt here. I know what lockup period means.
365day lockup isn’t a universal standard. For example for SpaceX 20% of insider shares can be sold in the first few days. 100% within the first 3 months.
Without a public S-1 filing we don’t know what the lockup for Anthropic will be
S-1 isn’t public yet. Source on the lockup period? SpaceX for example filed with accelerated release of insider/investor shares so I don’t think we can know if this is the case until the filing documents become public.
Total market indexes and target date funds will include this and SpaceX on float adjusted basis I believe. The blast radius is much larger than funds that track the NASDAQ directly.
Still the wrong response. Discipline the people abusing your trust.
Part of being a good manager is knowing when to step in and have a private conversation with people before things get too bad. If the bad behavior continues then you follow the process of formal write up’s and eventually termination.
Collective punishment is the sign of a manager who doesn’t know what they are doing and will kill a team.
There are European cloud providers though. American hyper scalers are not the only option. Lidl, Hetzner, OVH, ..etc.
I can spin up a dedicated server within 24-48hours or a VM within minutes on OVH. Also there have been plenty of white papers written about how much more expensive AWS is when compared to Hetzner or OVH.
The big cloud providers are quite expensive and come with a lot of geopolitical risk/baggage. European governments have safer alternatives within their own borders.
Edit: it’s Lidl who launched a cloud service not Aldi
There are plenty of EU domiciled Managed Service Providers who do have the skills though.
Having your government infrastructure run in country and managed by your citizens seems like a good idea just in general. It helps to develop local skills and the people living in country have a better feel for the needs of the local people.
I am an American but this just seems like a good idea even if the current geopolitical situation was better.
Specs weren’t the problem with waterfall. The difficulty in changing them to match reality was.
The waterfall process I experienced went like this:
- Product folks created requirements
- architects produced detailed specs
- project managers created tickets based on specs
- lengthy estimation ensued.
- Then finally developers proceeded with implementation.
- QA tested it.
Each step above involved lengthy review with like 5-10people. If the devs found an issue with the spec or god forbid the requirement it triggered a massive cascade of work for everyone above. Things needed to be reviewed again, customers may need to get contacted, …etc.
I think we can learn from that and optimize for change. Specs as living documents close to the code should be less cumbersome. But, just like anything else large corporations will probably fumble this like they did with “agile” (SAFe I am looking at you).
This is a long way to say specs aren’t bad. Specs that are difficult to change are though.
It just means that when changing a global default with such impact the user should be prompted with an option to opt out of the new behavior. Something like “AI assisted changes will now have ‘coauthored by Copilot’ added to the commit message”. If the user clicks “no thanks” it changes their local setting to “off” to opt them out of this new global default.
Changing the default behavior for all of your users with no notification is pretty unforgivable. Even if this feature worked correctly, it obviously doesn’t, this should at minimum be a prompt after upgrade to let the user confirm that this is what they want. But honestly should be opt in for those that want it.
To have it silently just start adding marketing copy to git commit messages is pretty bad. To have that added text not be visible to the user in the UI so they can remove it before commit is just much worse.
This kind of thing being released speaks to a greater disfunction over there. Not a good look at all and I am not a Microsoft or AI hater. But my commit messages are not where you move fast and break things