danmaz74

For many of us, it was our first computer. It was very simple to understand at every level and very hackable. I was very young when I used it, but I learned so much about the internals of computers.

You won't get 12% return if your panels generate electricity which is only paid between 18 and 19, because there is already overcapacity between 16:30 and 18.

I've read several comments in the last few months citing this kind of approach. What I'm trying to do is to make the implementation phase more reliable.

By the way, if you're not doing that yet, something that can really help when doing UI/UX work is to have the agent create some mockups, and then tests based on those - I'm using Cucumber with some extra sauce for this. It's a very nice way to guide the agent in a falsifiable way.

Wait until you hear about the giga-factories...

But seriously, if you care, this is just like using an existing library to do the lower level development work which I think is already pretty well done by the existing agents. It's not a design decision.

Interesting. From time to time I'm thinking about completely replacing the agent layer with my own, so that I would be able to enforce some rules at a lower level, but I'm wondering if it's worth it. What's been your experience with that?

Yes, like many others I've been experimenting a lot. What I've got so far is a harness-of-harnesses - ie, a harness which sits on top of Claude Code, Codex or OpenCode. I still use Claude Code or Codex directly for the initial planning of features, to investigate issues, and for small fixes, but whenever there's something even just a bit complex to do, I use my second-level harness.

Summarizing it a lot, what it does is:

* help you make better plans

* split plans into iterations, in a module-aware way for projects which have strict modularity (for now I'm doing this specifically with TypeScript and dependency cruiser) - this helps a lot when a project becomes complex

* ask an agent to implement an iteration, and then programmatically run a lot of checks after each iteration - not just regression tests, but also checks against project principles and conventions

* when possible, automatically fix deviations; when not possible, raise them to myself for an end-of-plan review

In this way, instead of having to constantly be engaged with the chat interface, with all the shorter or longer wait times which break my flow, I spend a lot of highly focused time during initial planning and final review. A plan implementation can go on for hours, and the various anchoring mechanisms added to the tool keep drift to a minimum.

At some point I'm planning to release this tool as open source. As this is the result of months of trial and errors, dogfooding, and vibecoding on the tool itself, the codebase is chaotic and the UI is still full of experiments I mostly basically abandoned, and I'm not used to releasing stuff in this status. But perhaps, in this brave new world, I should just do it and see what happens?

Thanks. Then it could definitely be remote controlled often enough.

How much does the monthly subscription cost?

don't know why the EU wants to trust the USA so bad

Because not trusting them is very expensive. But unfortunately, it's necessary.

No, we shouldn't act like (stupid) children. We should enact a transition based on what we can do and when. I know that nuanced and complex solutions to complex problems don't fire up voters anywhere, but that's the only way to not shoot our own feet.

There's many great candidates

Perhaps for top-paying companies, but that's never been my experience when I was involved in interviewing and hiring.

Of course life isn't fair. But here the result is that companies will ignore potentially great candidates which dedicate all their programming time to their job and instead consider candidates which may be not just worse programmers, but also are more interested in their hobbies (or padding their CV) that doing their job.

I'm saying this as somebody who most of the time has some side project going on.

What will happen is that the EU will start treating the US as a hostile nation, develop its own computer tech to replace American tech (probably together with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, UK, Canada, Australia) and THEN they will start denying ASML tech to the US. Bullies always think that there will be no consequences to their bullying... until they find out.

We'll see. Helping Trump in destroying USA's traditional alliances is probably worth more to China than keeping a Mythos for themselves.

According to this logic, Taiwan should keep the most advanced chips to itself, the EU should keep the most advanced chip lithography machines to itself, etc etc.

It will almost for sure surpass the models which Trump will allow US "allies" (which he just considers client states) to use. This, together with China's growing dominance in PV, rechargeable batteries, EV, could really be the nail in the coffin for the post WWII economic world order.

Typically, what can they pull out? don't they only have equity?

I think that waiting or not is mostly up to the harness, not the model itself.

Even when the UK was in the EU, you could create a limited liability company (LTD) for something like 200 pounds or less, no capital needed. So it's not true at all that setting up a business at a low cost is somehow against EU legislation.

So I guess that a lot of those 80 hours were spent running the test suite between changes?

Creating wealth doesn't hurt others. Removing wealth from most people to put it all in a few people's hands DOES hurt most people though.

The main thing about feature flags is discipline: create them purposefully, remove them as soon as they don't add value any more. KISS applies.

Correct, and specifically, it was the total focus on "shareholder value" which caused this, as most often splitting the company and selling its parts brought more immediate value to shareholders. If that also brings more long-term value could be more difficult to assess.

Funnily (or tragically?) enough, lots of environmentalists here in Italy are opposing solar and wind projects too. I find that crazy.

Human societies aren't governed by simple, divine Laws. "Free market economy", based on rational actors, is an abstraction, an idealized model which is useful to understand some mechanisms, but it's far - VERY far - from being a complete model of any real society. At some point, trying to explain everything with the simple rules of that abstraction becomes an ideology just like Communism, which tries to do the same with different abstractions/simplifications.

Sure, productivity increase is hugely important, but if you only pursue profit maximization, then all the productivity increase goes into profits, which means that the general population doesn't increase their well being much if at all.

The 40hr work week didn't come by as a consequence of the profit maximization mentality, but as a consequence of hard fought battles by the workers/employees against that mentality. And when I say "hard fought" I mean in the literal sense, with at least 1,000 workers killed just in the US in those days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_Unite...

"The world and business environment are changing too rapidly to make longtermist thinking practical." Tell that to the Chinese...

"Profit maximization" on its own would have left most people working 12+ hours a day 6 days a week, like it was very common in the 19th century. Luckily, it's never been the only force shaping our societies.

As the father of a girl, having struggled a lot to stop her from TikTok and similar when she was just 9, it would have been so much easier to enforce that if it had been forbidden by law. It's too late for us, but I'm happy that these measures are coming - it would have been good even without age checks.

Thank you, will definitely try that!