TJTorola

I think I pretty much agree with you that if someone finds evidence of danger to someone else's life then it is a fair expectation that they do something with that evidence. And despite that I still believe that is not a good enough reason to eliminate someone's right to privacy, and yet still that right doesn't mean that we should be able to demand privacy in all products. I think it is fairly clear that these big LLMs are not private products and we shouldn't expect them to be, but I'm still in support of offering private alternatives that people could use without having every input scrutinized.

I work over SSH often from various other OSs, TUIs don't need any additional abstractions to make that work, I just SSH in from any computer/OS and everything works. All I need is SSH and the terminal based apps. It's not psychotic, it's literally a feature that cannot be found with GUIs.

Perhaps we'll get to a point where believing any un-sourced information from an LLM will feel crazy. I don't want my model to know more than it needs to perform logic and use tools. Once it is capable of using tools I would much rather it looked up information or sourced it from existing context rather than just divine it from it's weights.

Really want to play this with a controller. Seems to me that a joystick to steer and another to adjust the sail would be really intuitive. Aside from that really fun, looking forward to future updates.

Except it is intentionally unstructured. AT proto is one way to add the structures we obviously care about for "social" internet media on top of the freedom that the web as a whole provides.

Eerily close to Roman decimation.

Came here to say this, difftastic is great as long as you are working in a language where it understands the language tree (most languages). Getting away from diffs being focused on line changes to diffs that understand the actual language makes so much sense once you start to use it.

Ideological is carrying a lot of weight there. Perhaps you can be more specific about the ideological arguments you are hearing that are not worth it?

Yes as of about a week ago, last I checked.

Anthropic is actively blocking calls from anything but claude code for it's claude plans. At this point you either need to be taking part in the cat and mouse game to make that plan work with opencode or you need to be paying the much more expensive API prices.

I'm not particularly against AI programming but I don't think these two things are equivilent. A compiler translates code to specifications in a deterministic way, the same compiler produces the same output from the same code, it is all completely controlled. AI is not at all deterministic, temperature is built into LLMs and furthermore the lack of specificity in prompts and our spoken languages. The difference in control is significant enough to me not to put compilers and AI coding agents into the same catagory even though they are both taking some text and producing some other text/machine code.

Existing social platforms are built for profit, which modulates emotion for engagement (something kind of like entertainment, but I wouldn't say I'm entertained exactly by the rage bait I'm often fed by algorithms). Users of an open protocol might select for the same experience, or they might not, I think that's yet to be seen. This also assumes that this fantasy open protocol could also escape the pressures of maximizing profit.

I generally agree, pinning versions and then having some script to automatically update to capture security updates makes sense, except that it also assumes that every package is just using standard symver, which in my experience is something like 99% true.

But it's also missing the value of hashes, even if every package used symver, then you had a script that could easily update to get recent security updates, we would still gain value from a lockfile hashes to protect against source code changing underneath the same version code.