I'd buy the core thesis and appreciate the concern.
I do think security is going to require more, not, less human investment as attackers may be running automated vulnerability screens from the outside that you must counter, as well. Without rigorous internal processes to manage and screen all changes and upgrades, companies risk leaving themselves open.
One design change which limits exposure is to have more local-first apps or experiences so there's less cloud / server to computer interactions to secure.
The argument I was trying to make is that we (in the US) have an economic and political system where decisions are made by the person/party with the most economic power. I shorthand by saying it's "by auction."
When you do that at a system-level you have a problem where the decision maker is making trade-off decisions for the system based on their best interests vs the system.
This problem happens in product/software companies at a different scale where orgs have different power and may influence a product in a way that fails the users and eventually isn't in best interests of the system.
I have been curious about the “what must be true” for AI data centers to be brought online. I wanted a systemic review to understand the technical supply chain to deliver modern inference.
What I found is the AI buildout is being slowed by people declining the offer, some on their porches, some on planning commissions, some at the trading floor of a capacity auction. There's also a few single points of failure in the supply chain.
The AI buildout, as I learned, is a bigger test of our entire economic, political, and societal system.
After a trip to a textile museum, I had to research once I saw the obvious connection. I wrote this for anyone who loves tracking the evolution of ideas vs acting like everything is new and invented from nothing.
Looking forward to discussing and geeking out on computing history.
the article doesn't argue for a capitalist cohort to support any other. Rather it asks for limits to the capitalists reach, such that other systems can use resources in other ways and preserve non cash systems.
I think the insight for me in researching all this was just popping my bubble that thought of capitalism and what's wrong with it through the lens I was taught which was mainly political.
Once I reframed through the "right to not compete" or not participate in capitalism and retain dignity, the system and how it's taking us further from that ability became clear.
it’s not discussed in this post but in another right after I discuss the modeling I was doing on tech debt and finding the game to improve agent outcomes was reducing context.
functional programming accomplishes that. I can’t claim it’s the only way, but it’s one that’s well understood in the community
I've explored Clojure after talking to Metabase about how it had benefited them. That said, it was years ago so I can't claim it influenced this work.
The framework was designed to be a language agnostic way of sharing best practices to bias agent behavior towards a more scalable end. I initially used it when I was working with a team to do some massive refactoring/clean up across the codebase. We didn't come to an acronym but similar principles and it was "testable" and easy to push back on PRs that weren't aligned with the principles.
That said, it may be interesting to see if I could replace all that context and just say -- "code it like you would with Clojure"
A port to Swift has been released April 1 by Tornike Gomareli (https://x.com/tornikegomareli) the community so now it's able to be used in Mac Native apps
OP / Author here, I started closer to where you are but ended up realizing I've led a few eng teams and was never satisfied with code quality. What I COULD be satisfied by was moving our metrics in the right direction. Testing coverage, use cases covered by E2E / integration tests, P99/backend efficiency metrics, cost of infrastructure and obviously user growth along with positive feedback from Users.
That said, I don't "vibe" because it creates great code I love reading, but I can monitor and move the same metrics I would if I was managing a team.
I also use code tours a bit, and one of my first tools I needed and built (intraview.ai) was to support this need to get deep in the code the Agents were claiming was ready to ship.
OP here, you're right. I discuss that as a next step at the end. The process to get to this point is the insight to how to accomplish this cross platforms.
I think this is great. Only limit of git is I can't imagine "git blame" works. It would be nice to know who voted for and against each patch. Git isn't structured for collaborative commits.
I do think security is going to require more, not, less human investment as attackers may be running automated vulnerability screens from the outside that you must counter, as well. Without rigorous internal processes to manage and screen all changes and upgrades, companies risk leaving themselves open.
One design change which limits exposure is to have more local-first apps or experiences so there's less cloud / server to computer interactions to secure.