Any background / context around what the Chicory author means in this comment?
> We'll consider merging in changes that make sense from Endive, but under the stewardship of the [Byte Code Alliance] I have very little faith in its future. My words mean nothing though having all but completely lost interest and use for WebAssembly.
What's the background / history of Byte Code Alliance?
I don't have any LSP's hooked up to CC yet (going to fix that today), or particularly sophisticated CLAUDE.md files.
So, if I've read this post correctly, that means that CC is navigating my codebase today by sending lots of it up to a model, and building an understanding. Is that correct? Did I misunderstand it?
I kinda suspected there was more local inference going on somehow -- partly because the iteration times are fairly fast.
I can see you're A/B testing some different hero text.
I got:
> Write a config, not a conversation
Which I found let me wondering - "What is this thing?"
I refreshed a few times to the variations, and while some were better, I feel like your hero could do with being less pithy, and more plain explanation of what it is.
I've lived in London for a decade, and feel incredibly lucky to have access to the transit here - having lived in Aus, NZ and Canada previously.
It's not perfect. It's late sometimes, pollution sucks, and often crowded - but people here who like to criticise it really don't recognise how much better they have it than lots of other places.
Same with travel from here to Europe (by train), is just awesome.
This is a really great post - and what they've built here is very impressive.
I wonder if we're at the point where the cost of building and maintaining this yourselves (assisted with an AI Copilot) is now more effective than an off-the-shelf?
It feels like there's a LOT of moving parts here, but also it's deeply tailored to their own setup.
FWIW - I tried pointing Claude at the post and asking it to design an implementation, (like the post said to do) and it struggled - but perhaps I prompted it wrong.
> As long as you have Pricing on your website your product is not open source in the true spirit of open sourceness.
It's an MIT license. That IS open source.
If they have a commercial strategy - that's a GoodThing. It means they have a viable strategy for staying in business, and keeping the project maintained.
MIT == OpenSource. Pricing == Sustainable. That's a horse worth backing IMO.
I've finished up there now, so this is purely retrospective.
For them - the workaround (sadly) was -- a lack of testing.
I was really surprised that in a heavily regulated environment (this project faced off to a regulator) Integration testing (which has gotten really easy on the JVM thanks to stuff like TestContainers) just didn't exist.
That could be symptom of a broader lack of a test-driven culture though.
That's not what happened here. The BBC edited footage to make it appear that Trump said something he didn't in the leadup to the Jan-6 riots.
My personal biases are pretty strongly in favour of the BBC, but what they did here was really bad. It's appropriate that heads roll. I wish more orgs would have the same level of accountability.
However, the "Privacy First" and "No Ads" claim gets eroded pretty quickly by cookies, and requests to trackers like n.clarity.ms, google-analytics and adtrafficquality.google.
Note - I don't actually have an issue with any of those things - if you wanna monetize this service through analytics and ads, that's up to you. But it's at odds with your privacy first claims.
> We'll consider merging in changes that make sense from Endive, but under the stewardship of the [Byte Code Alliance] I have very little faith in its future. My words mean nothing though having all but completely lost interest and use for WebAssembly.
What's the background / history of Byte Code Alliance?