pacoWebConsult

Is it really that bad of an idea to experiment, put things out into public, and see what works and what sticks? They haven't abandoned agent-browser and portless, which came out of these vercel-labs efforts because they're useful tools and people are using them.

I had claude write itself a post-message hook that regex's the message for any variant of "You're right" and launch a full-screen transparent confetti effect.

Yeah, as someone with strict export compliance concerns which forces us to use Bedrock because its exclusively us-based inference in our AWS account, this does nothing for me. Frankly, nothing Anthropic has shipped over the past 6 months besides the models themselves has been useful to our company, despite running into the same problems they're trying to solve with all of those features (managed, remote agents). There's not really a good solution, as AgentCore runtime sucks and is expensive. You basically have to build this yourself because nobody is solving for self-hosted managed infra for agents, and we don't really have the time to build this sort of system on top of building our actual product. It's very frustrating for them to put this out as a win, when it doesn't help the people who are using AWS Bedrock to begin with.

Claude Code uses Bun. Anthropic acquired Bun in December. Bun is an alternative node runtime.

We're inventing stumbleupon from first principles.

You can only ctrl+o the most recent response, and its a lot worse than knowing the # of lines read or the pattern grepped, which are useful because it can tell you what the agent is thrashing on trying to find, or what context would be useful to give it upfront in the future.

WPF was full of footguns and rigid organization to alleviate said footguns. MVVM (Model, View, Viewmodel) architecture was so much boilerplate and toil to work with. It feels like the advent of Electron-based desktop apps caused MS to simply give up on the space.

I don't have too much experience with MAUI so I can't comment on that.

Blazor's initial bundle sizes made it quite difficult to consider as an option for web applications, despite the ability to share code between frontend and backend.

I still feel like the ASP.NET + Frontend SPA story has a long way to go compared to what is available in the fullstack typescript ecosystem right now. Shared typings between the frontend and backend via tools like tRPC/ oRPC, or full RSC/SSR frameworks like Next and TanStack start are just so much more ergonomic, but the backend TS story, especially in data access and ORMs is so much worse compared to Entity Framework. Prisma is abysmally slow, and Drizzle is getting there but IMO nothing right now compares to the power and DX of EF Core + Linq methods.

Models each have their own, often competing, quirks on how they utilize AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md. It's very likely a CLAUDE.md written for use with Claude Code utilizes prompting techniques that results in worse output if taken directly and used with Codex. For example, Anthropic recommends putting info that an agent must adhere to in statements like "MUST run tests after writing code" and other all-caps directives, whereas people have found using the same language with GPT-5.2 results in less instruction following, more timid responses than if the AGENTS.md were written without them.

DO-178c is not a coding standard, it's a process standard. Projects following DO-178c processes would adopt a coding standard as a part of the process, reviewing software deliverables adhere to those standards.

The federal government has grown immensely since the early 20th century due to the interpretations of the commerce clause allowing more and more federal legislation and rules to broadly be applied to essentially override state legislation.

The 10th amendment exists for a reason. The system wasn't intended for congress to even control something like this in the first place.

It's not a fraction of what it would cost to actually employ those humans, since there were humans who clearly chose to do that work when presented with the opportunity.

I think this is a very first-world oriented take. It efficiently distributed low-value workloads to people who were willing to do it for the pay provided. The market was efficient, and the wages were clearly on par with those who were doing the work found economical to do, considering they did (and still do) the work for the wages provided.

If you're going to use claude to help you respond to feedback the least you can do is restate this in your own words. Parent commenter deserves the respect of corresponding with a real human being.