It is unfortunate that a large number of users here are not hackers, not even in an idealistic philosophical sense, and will betray the public good for their own short-term gain. You either unite the world or you divide it.
Very cool. Just a few days ago, I had noted a proposed spec for a biologically-inspired high-level concurrency model where no user-facing channels/send/recv are required. The user secrets proteins, defines their receptors, and the system handles the rest. Unlike you, I don't have an implementation, but now with GPT 5.6 released it's within reach. The actionable spec prompt is at https://gist.github.com/impredicative/a0dd4ac68cd05e9d3855dc...
I propose separating #1 (the main API/SDK) into a separate core package. This will be easier, smaller, and cleaner to maintain, and will meet the needs of many users with new projects. It will satisfy the purity criteria.
I don't like the idea of monkeypatching even if it makes things convenient to use, because this risks being hell to maintain. You won't know of all the hidden bugs in it until a million users have used it.
As for the AIO bridge, single core execution is hell anyway, and so I don't like that idea either.
Can you point me to the documentation and examples of the main API/SDK?
Does your code have a significant dependency on the version of Python? How easy will it be for you to maintain your code to support Python 3.15, 3.16, etc.? Is it too dependent on the implementation of Python 3.13 and 3.14 or its low level aspects? What is all the Python code doing?
No one can reliably track uses of "it", and definitely not multiple uses, so please take your time to qualify everything explicitly. Currently I have no idea what each "it" is referring to.
Complaining about it is even more tiresome, also useless. Also, at times the accusations are false. Worse yet, sometimes the accusations even are motivated with by those with a conflict of interest who want to suppress the information.
It's laughable to be surprised by cheating on take-home exams. Does the professor have a comparative assessment before AI? Do you think the cheating didn't happen on them before AI? It always happened. It's structural, in the same ways that speeding on the highway is structural, and evading taxes on cash income is structural. And the structural fix is in-class exams.
No, you painted your knowledge as being comprehensive, which is absurd for anyone to claim. The arrogance is in asserting one’s personal knowledge as being absolute and complete. It is exactly such arrogance that has brought us to where we are. You obviously mean well for yourself and others, but understand that basic humility of knowledge is more important than the knowledge.
> any properly designed system will include remineralization
The quality of the remineralization can be quite poor. It may raise the pH without adding much minerals or even buffering capacity. Let me distinctly quantify the residual concerns of the RO output as: pH, bicarbonate, chloride, calcium, magnesium, and silica. All six are important. One has to be savvy enough to take steps to address each, failing which the RO water is not healthful.
> It ballpark costs me somewhere around $40k/yr to minimize exposure
Why so much? Where is the money going? Is it going on exclusively Organic food for a family of three?
I don't know why people eat pasta, considering bulgur wheat is pretty good, is easy to cook, also cooks in the microwave, and is much less processed. I like bulgur wheat a fair bit.
The article has no responsibility of explaining to you why PFAS is harmful, considering its harms are well established in science over many years. Your denialism and ignorance of the harms of PFAS is a malicious attempt to discredit the article. I suggest asking your preferred LLM service with access to the web to find you the necessary evidence.