No. I will generate code in a way that makes it easier for clankers to maintain it, because they will actually be doing the maintaining. In practice, this means that most of my time is dedicated to improving the repo harness because the state of the repo harness directly determines the quality of the codebase as a whole.
At a minimum, there should be precommit checks and CI workflows that cause PRs to fail if the documentation is not up-to-date and synced with the other docs.
Then regular codebase analysis for improvement. This is where you find the bug sources, make new modules for consolidation, and get those +5000/-4000 PRs that people stuck in the world of manual code review hate.
I have Fable send the specs/plans it comes up with to GPT for review and in 2/5 cases yesterday it found additional 1-2 bugs while in the process of reviewing.
GPT-5.6 didn't try to fix the bugs (as instructed) but it did surface them, which is something that didn't happen with GPT-5.5. When spec/plans approved Fable sends back to GPT-5.6 for ralph implementation and it seems to be an even faster, more reliable workhorse than it already was in GPT-5.5. Overall, impressed. Will continue to be a core piece of my workflow.
In my limited experience of seeing Dutch auctions in practice it actually has the opposite of the intended effect, as the people that are willing to pay the highest are also the people that will have a way to profit, just on a lesser scale.
For example, Panini (sports card manufacturer) did Dutch auctions on boxes of new card sets during the peak of pandemic collectible mania. The majority of customers that were willing to pay the highest prices on Panini's website were card breakers, which are people/companies that sell "spots" in livestream box openings (i.e. customers buy the right to all cards containing players from a certain sports team before the box is opened).
Cursor's moat is that it is a virus that infects organizations through shared skills, hooks, agents, etc.. Once one person uses it and infects the repo everyone else starts using it.
It's a huge jump across the board. I was really impressed with its ability to test usability in Claude for Chrome. Very opinionated but in a good way. It was good while it lasted.
I do file summaries as well. Basically a knowledge base commit hook + agent that creates/updates a file containing a summary and list of its dependencies, followed by updating an index to include it. Super useful for creating system migration scopes and just managing context in general.
Lol wut. One of first things people do at a company when they get enterprise LLM tools is share a skill with company-specific color palettes or standards for creating visualizations (I prefer Tufte's principles).
Hooks are incredibly underused by most people and are the easiest way to establish a first line of defense against bad behavior. Things like blocking tool calls that will read .env file or execute "create or replace table".
Totally agree. Was just trying to emphasize that there are better ways to do this if privacy and security are something that Yoti actually cares about. ZKP is not a magic bullet.
The third-party list on page 12 is not small. The real-time api architecture creates a live, per-query link between a specific user event and every broker in the chain. Batch transfers or delta shares would break that linkage. Zero-knowledge proofs (also mentioned in the study) can prove age without handing anyone a name, document, or photo.
There's no reason Aristotle or Veratad should see who the underlying requestor is. Yoti should receive the verification request, strip the context, make the request - that's it. The fact that it isn't structured that way and they are tagging on additional metadata suggests per-query economics, which creates a direct incentive to route more verifications through more parties, exactly backwards from data minimization. I'm not going to call it a rev share, but the architecture is consistent with one.
Has there been a lot of progress with ML in Rust? I don't really keep up with it because it seems like every crate ends up getting abandoned and I just gave up caring.
Yeah Claude is really, really good there. You tell it the distro and the problem and it will solve it. Saved me a lot of pain when it came to swapping out an encrypted boot drive and was good about emphasizing the order of operations required for what I would consider a higher risk/complexity situation.
JetBrains has several niches it excels in. DataGrip is by far the most important tool in my toolbox, as it allows me to work with every database type imaginable in one place (Databricks, Postgres, MSSQL, Oracle, etc.).
And people wonder why there is so much push back against AI. The last thing leadership should do when laying off people is use the term AI. It's the most tone deaf thing you can do.
Effort is still being put into it. Just this weekend YouTube put the 4K Coachella streams behind SABR. I could still get 1080p easily but 4K required some fanangling.
At a minimum, there should be precommit checks and CI workflows that cause PRs to fail if the documentation is not up-to-date and synced with the other docs.
Then regular codebase analysis for improvement. This is where you find the bug sources, make new modules for consolidation, and get those +5000/-4000 PRs that people stuck in the world of manual code review hate.