akrauss

Why is the Hono Websocket table non-monotonic in tokens vs costs?

Looking forward to some article/video

Does emdash also help making the setup secure by isolating the agent from my local environment? This is more than just git worktrees.

Or do you consider this orthogonal to what emdash attempts to do?

Thanks, I missed that when looking through the component list on the top level.

No Datepicker?

I would like to see the following published:

- All prompts used

- The structure of the agent team (which agents / which roles)

- Any other material that went into the process

This would be a good source for learning, even though I'm not ready to spend 20k$ just for replicating the experiment.

What I missed when trying it was a simple way of accessing private repositories. There does not seem to be ssh agent forwarding, or is there? What do people use?

I realize this is all very fresh, but still wondering…

Sprites are active when: * They're servicing an incoming HTTP request. * You're interacting with a console.

They are advocated as Linux machines. How about daemons then, or cron jobs? What semantics can we expect from them?

This is a good concise summary, regardless of provenance.

It is really important that such posts exist. There is the risk that we only hear about the wild successes and never the failures. But from the failures we learn much more.

One difference between this story and the various success stories is that the latter all had comprehensive test suites as part of the source material that agents could use to gain feedback without human intervention. This doesn’t seem to exist in this case, which may simply be the deal breaker.

What tooling are you using for the orchestration?

Quick feedback: both the „learn more“ link at the very top and the „Explore all examples“ link lead to 404

Possibly. One could think about hooking this in as a tool or simple shell command. But then there is no management when multiple tools modify the codebase simultaneously.

But it is still worth a try and may be possible with some prompting and duct tape.

There is one feature in Claude Code which is often overlooked and I haven't seen it in any of the other agentic tools: There is a tool called "sub-agent", which creates a fresh context windows in which the model can independently work on a clearly defined sub-task. This effectively turns Claude Code from a single-agent model to a hierarchical multi-agent model (I am not sure if the hierarchy goes to depths >2).

I wonder if it is a concious decision not to include this (I imagine it opens a lot of possibilities of going crazy, but it also seems to be the source of a great amount of Claud Code's power). I would very much like to play with this if it appears in gemini-cli

Next step would be the possibility to define custom prompts, toolsets and contexts for specific re-occuring tasks, and these appearing as tools to the main agent. Example for such a thing: create_new_page. The prompt could describe the steps one needs to create the page. Then the main agent could simply delegate this as a well-defined task, without cluttering its own context with the operational details.

One thing I'd really like to see in coding agents is this: As an architect, I want to formally define module boundaries in my software, in order to have AI agents adhere to and profit from my modular architecture.

Even with 1M context, for large projects, it makes sense to define boundaries These will typically be present in some form, but they are not available precisely to the coding agent. Imagine there was a simple YAML format where I could specify modules and where they can be found in the source tree, and the APIs of other modules it interacts with. Then it would be trivial to turn this into a context that would very often fit into 1M tokens. When an agent decides something needs to be done in the context of a specific module, it could then create a new context window containing exactly that module, effetively turning a large codebase into a small codebase, for which Gemini is extraordinarily effective.

I would be interested in reading what tools are made available to the LLM, and how everything is wired together to form an effective analysis loop. It seems like this is a key ingredient here.

I can see this being very useful for many admin interfaces where some basic data must be managed by domain experts and UX and is not a priority. Many enterprise applications have such parts.

I wonder what the GPLv3 licensing means for such scenarios: Could people run Mathesar one microservice in an ensemble with proprietary services? Companies who don‘t want to open source their whole product might still be willing to upstream their fixes and improvements to the Mathesar component.

I understand. But I'd rather not get into the complexities and new funny failure modes of such a system, so I was hoping for something simpler.

You call this an anti-pattern (and rightfully so, since cluttering application code like this is a nightmare), but then what is the better pattern? In an app with >100 entities and >500 types of business transactions, many of which can fail in unexpected ways, will I be forced to maintain what was changed in Permify and roll back manually?

If yes, then this is quite a burden and might be a valid reason for not using a separate permissions store. But maybe there are better ways...?

There is one thing I'd like to know about this general approach of centralising permission data. I guess my question applies to Permify as well as to its various competitors:

When objects and relations change in the applications database, then these changes will often have to be reflected in the permissions database as well, and the application must keep things in sync. But this is probably harder as it first seems, in the presence of errors and transaction rollbacks.

What about this case:

- User creates a FOO in the application.

- The app creates an entry in the "foo" table and assigns the user id as owner, and attempts to store various other data.

- The app also creates an entity in the permissions database and assigns the user id as an owner.

- Then further steps are performed, and one of them fails, rolling back the transaction in the application database.

I would assume that the change to the permissions database cannot be rolled back then, so there is now an inconsistency.

What do people typically do about these things?

The journal is named „Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing“, which may be the scientific equivalent of a clickbait blogspam site (but I haven’t checked more deeply).

When dog and rabbit are on the same node, it was somewhat hard for me to pick the right one to move (on mobile Safari), but I eventually managed. Very nice game.

Thanks for the pointer, we'll consider this. This is currently an attempt to direct the energy we found in our direct surroundings towards some form of collaboration. Doesn't contradict joining efforts.

The article shows that Visa is one of the first examples of a digital platform business:

- Technology as an enabler

- Creates value by standardized digital processes

- Strong positive network effect

- Stable revenue through transaction fees

Which books are you referring to? I’m interested...