Martin, I just wanted to say you've built something awesome here. I'm the player Vheissu you might see who has been topping the leaderboard. I would love to help you expand upon the game and make it even better. I'm a bit addicted to it, but think being able to have other avenues to expand the mechanics would be awesome (think maintenance costs, fuel costs, market volatility around fuel, etc). If you're down for a collaborator, I'd love to get involved. It's got a lot of potential.
The problem is Coilot is dumb. Allegedly using the same models ChatGPT does, but Microsoft seems to have done something to Copilot which lobotomises it so badly it's unusable for anything serious. Great for the MS ecosystem integration, but as a general purpose tool, it's nowhere near ChatGPT.
WFH autonomy isn’t trivial, it’s about reclaiming control of your time, environment, and productivity. If collective action focuses narrowly yet powerfully on securing that benefit, the leverage is clear. Companies resisting WFH often rely on isolated dissent; collective solidarity flips that script. Risky? Sure. But meaningful rights rarely arrive quietly. Worth the fight.
Your app might gamify speech practice, but it overlooks crucial elements: nuanced human judgment, emotional rapport, and adaptive interpersonal communication. Speech therapists don’t just correct sounds; they navigate psychological nuances, adjust dynamically based on subtle cues, and foster genuine motivation through trust. AI might imitate, but can’t authentically replicate this.
Parents wary of therapy’s cost and engagement issues might initially bite, but sustained improvement demands personalised professional insight. Edtech and AI thrive as complements, not replacements.
Reframe your positioning clearly as a supplemental practice tool, not a replacement for professional therapy, or risk selling parents a mirage.
My 2004 5 series BMW had this (it was called iDrive). A command style knob that could move on an axis of sorts (up and down, left, right). You could also press it in. I absolutely hated it.
I learned this lesson the hard way with my early 2000s BMW 5 Series (a 2004 model). It had a single joystick-style knob (iDrive, if I remember correctly) controlling a screen that handled everything—climate, settings, and more. The problem? It was an all-in-one system, completely integrated with vehicle functions, which meant you couldn’t swap it out for a newer or better OEM system. You were stuck with aging tech, and once the screen or computer started acting up, there were no simple fixes. No cheap button replacement, no easy upgrades.
Compare that to an old LandCruiser or similar vehicle from the ’80s. Physical controls still work decades later, and worst-case scenario, you replace a button or a switch for pocket change. Meanwhile, modern cars are turning into disposable tech products, destined for obsolescence the moment their proprietary systems fail. It's for this reason when I bought a new car a couple of years ago, I opted for a Toyota LandCruiser, the use of physical buttons (despite coming with touchscreens now) makes a huge difference when you're driving and want to press a button to change music or turn the volume up/down.
Not sure if people picked up on it, but this is being powered by the unreleased o3 model. Which might explain why it leaps ahead in benchmarks considerably and aligns with the claims o3 is too expensive to release publicly. Seems to be quite an impressive model and the leading out of Google, DeepSeek and Perplexity.
I love Sublime Text editor. Have been using it for 15 years now and despite the fact most of my development is done inside of VSCode or other editors, I still use ST for large files and notes. I can confidently open up a 1gb SQL dump in ST and it won't break a sweat, try that in VSCode and you can see it freeze up for a bit and that's on a decent machine too.
This is like watching a carpenter blame their hammer because they didn’t measure twice. AI is a tool, it's like a power tool for a tradesperson: it'll amplify your skills, but if you let it steer the whole project? You’ll end up with a pile of bent nails.
LLMs are jittery apprentices. They'll hallucinate measurements, over-sand perfectly good code, or spin you in circles for hours. I’ve been there back in the GPT-4 days especially, nothing stings like realising you wasted a day debugging AI’s creative solution to a problem you could've solved in 20 minutes.
When you treat AI like a toolbelt, not a replacement for your own brain? Magic. It’s killer at grunt work like; explaining regex, scaffolding boilerplate, or untangling JWT auth spaghetti. You still gotta hold the blueprint. AI ain't some magic wand: it’s a nail gun. Point it wrong, and you’ll spend four days prying out mistakes.
Sucks it cost you time, but hey, now you know to never let the tool work you. It's hopefully a lesson OP learns once and doesn't let it sour their experience with AI, because when utilised properly, you can really get things done, even if it's just the tedious/boring stuff or things you'd spend time Google bashing, reading docs or finding on StackOverflow.
The fact the new CEO can't even get answers from the board is quite telling. Looks like the OpenAI board wants those investor lawsuits. And allegedly the Quora guy Adam D'Angelo is the ringleader of all this?
I have Aurelia 1 apps that have been in production since 2015. They don't need to be really touched. But, when they do, they're really easy to modify. I am currently using Aurelia 2 and will have similar scalable apps that will be in production for years to come too.
I am not saying HTMX is terrible or anything. What you've built is cool and I've built something with it. The point I was making wasn't made very well. What I meant was good options are often left out of the conversation because of React, Vue and for a while there, Svelte. There are a lot of great libraries and frameworks that nobody talks about, HTMX included. I just feel like HTMX isn't being hyped because it's good, but because of the memes/marketing aspect. I think it's a disservice to your work, which deserves to be assessed on its merits. It's a sad indictment on front-end that building something good is no longer good enough to get recognition.
I'm old enough to remember when servers rendered everything and you used CSS and Javascript to enhance the pages after they were rendered. The web is in such a dark and overengineered place. It's almost unbelievable. It's why my approach to building apps is server-rendered first and then enhanced after the fact.
I've been working with Web Components a bit lately and was pleasantly surprised to see Lit had some similarities to Aurelia. Nothing really comes close to Aurelia, which is surprising given it has one of the better developer experiences.
The syntax and overall paradigm of Aurelia 2 is the same. The team avoided where possible a repeat of what Angular did to the community with the transition to Angular 2. Most notable differences are routing and dynamic composition.
These are all Aurelia 1 concerns which have been fixed in Aurelia 2.
- There is no dirty-checking in Aurelia 2. The observation system now uses proxies and other sensible fall-back strategies. The computed decorator for getters is also gone in v2, meaning no accidental vectors for dirty-checking.
- Observation system was rebuilt to use many of the same strategies detailed in point one. No dirty checking and proxy-first. Similarly, your next point about mutations, also has been addressed by the new binding system.
- Many of the templating bugs people encountered were spec implementation issues due to how the browser interprets template tags and content inside them. There were a few repeater bugs, but the ones outside of non-spec compliance haven't been a problem in years and do not exist in Aurelia 2.
- You can write type-safe templates now.
- You have have conditional slots now if you use the new au-slot element. A lot of the slot limitations in Aurelia 1 were because Aurelia adhered to the Web Components spec for how slots worked. In v2 there is still slot, but a new au-slot has been introduced to allow you to do dynamic slots, spot replacement, detect if slots are defined or contain content.
It's important to realise Aurelia 1 was released in 2015, so it's not perfect and some design decisions reflected the state of the web and browser limitations at the time. Aurelia beat out React in a lot of benchmarks back in the day. I'm sure Aurelia 1 vs React has slipped, but Aurelia was one of the faster options for a while, especially in re-rendering performance. You should give v2 a look. It improves upon v1 in every single way.