I prototyped some rather complex internal library with it, taking advantage of the free period. It was cool while it lasted, but I wouldn't pay for it. I'd be able to do the same thing with cheaper models and more time + involvement from me. I'd work a bit longer, but would also have more insights about how the project works. It would have cost ~160$ for one day. Hard to justify using it as a daily driver. I did appreciate its concision + willingness to go an extra mile to make sure things work, but all of this could potentially be ported to smaller models with the right training setup I assume.
In my experience, this is a more frequent issue. At least 1 time per day, I hit play hoping to play Spotify in a browser tab or some radio tab and for some reason it opens Apple Music instead. Sometimes it could be an issue on my side, ex: the tab is dead or not even opened.
But whatever, the experience is bad: I have to wait for the Music application startup time, then click the context menu and select "Quit Apple Music". It feels like being forced to watch a product ad. Opening Apple Music is never what I want. Imagine if pressing shift opened TextEdit by default, that would be silly. Or doing CMD-v where you can't paste would automatically pop up some random app.
I feel like no machine response is a correct UX pattern in this case. The absence of sound playback would indicate to me that I need to do something else to play sound.
There are multiple different sources that the user might want to start playing. Browser tab A/B/C (example: web radios), a music application or music service website in a tab that's not even opened yet (eg: spotify), the last video tab they opened (ex: youtube).
Whatever is the last thing that was paused should play IMHO. If nothing was paused, it should do nothing. Else, you open a pandora's box of possibly wrong choices that the user then has to close.
magit is pretty useful! In particular, I use M-x magit-blame for blaming a file line by line and jumping to previous versions, M-x magit-status to stage individual files, M-x magit-log-buffer-file to know the file's history. Very helpful when tracking down bugs.
I get the best output when I work on a single project or 2 entirely different projects at the same time. Example: work + a side quest or prototype where agents cannot overwrite each other's code. I can add a third stream of real world productive tasks, example: do the dishes.
I think in terms of UI, codex has become superior probably due to its sandbox concept. It can complete tasks reliably without intervention whereas claude would have stalled asking permissions (unless you run it in --dangerously-skip-permissions, which I won't do). I don't know about you, but sitting in front of my laptop just to continuously press enter is depressing, I'd rather do other tasks in the meantime, which is exactly what I can do with codex.
So combined with the issues claude has been experiencing in the last couple of weeks (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47660925) - codex has become a better option. Claude has been unable to complete simple tasks and got lost in 5+ minutes of exploration too many times and I just called quits.
Claude has become pretty slow and in the last couple of weeks, so I switched to codex. Codex code can be quite sloppy, so it's worth doing multiple review passes.
The intended use is to run `moonreview` instead of `git status` / `git diff` or `magit`, but you can add comments and they get auto resolved. You can also stage hunks if you are happy with them.
Probably other tools exist or will appear in this space (I saw at least another one in the comments on this post), but i think there is something fundamentally too slow and dumb with current corporate code reviews. People are reviewing other people's slop and most of the comments are probably fed back into an agent. So why not have the whole process be done upfront by the original developper. Another cool thing I saw people do is to attach claude to github PR comments, which I think is great and love to work with this, but it's even better if we can also have this locally to catch sloppy code before it even reaches github.
Training a tiny LLM for fun using Rust/Candle - I constantly tweak stuff and keep track of results in a spreadsheet and work on generating a bigger corpus with LLMs. It's a project for fun, so I don't care about finding actual human generated text, I'd rather craft data in the format I want using LLMs - Probably not the best practice, but I can sleep properly despite doing that.
My favorite output so far is that I asked it what life was and in a random stroke of genius, it answered plainly: "It is.".
It's able to answer simple questions where the answer is in the question with up to 75% accuracy. Example success: 'The car was red. Q: What was red? ' |> 'the car' - Example failure: 'The stars twinkled at night. Q: What twinkled at night? ' |> 'the night'.
So nothing crazy, but I'm learning and having fun. My current corpus is ~17mb of stories, generated encyclopedia content, json examples, etc. JSON content is new from this weekend and the model is pretty bad at it so far, but I'm curious to see if I can get it somewhere interesting in the next few weeks.
I also loved Zig when manually typing code, but I increasingly use AI to write my code even in personal projects. In that context, I'd rather use Rust more, since the AI takes care of complex syntax anyway. Also, the rust ecosystem is bigger, so I'd rather stick to this community.
> Developers are not Idiots
I'm often distracted and AIs are idiots, so a stricter language can keep both me and AIs from doing extra dumb stuff.
It's not clear from the landing page whether it's a git code platform / mercurial / entirely new VCS. I wish it was clearer (looking at the Readme, looks like it's indeed a git hosting platform).
I don't really care about the governance model as a user seeing this landing page for the first time, so I wonder why it's so prominent, vs telling me what the actual product is.
Yeah on one hand, a lot of successful & high quality software projects are the result of one very dedicated brain, so maybe it's a valid tradeoff to have an arrogant dictator.
On the other hand, that does not feel so nice as a contribution environment, it creates a software design bottleneck on one person, increasing shipping time and creating a dangerous bus factor. It's not a really scalable way do software design. Overall that attitude is pretty detrimental to community as he basically complains about all previous contributors.
Maybe I'd suggest him to:
- Work on his attitude, respect other contributors & stop calling them names.
- Spend less time developing and more time educating other people who work on the project.
- Come up with a set of design principles that the rest of the project can follow.
But yeah that's open source, he's free to fork a project. Probably his project will be successful anyway despite the negativity.