rajangdavis

Have you tested the game? Jumping on the pipe after the koopa and goomba kills mario

I have been using your service for a few months… super easy to set up and use. I signed up after my bank would not let me process a payment to Hetzner :)

My use case was to play around with hermes. I was using it for a while but I didn’t like how it ended up (the whole set up became overran with files and was a mess, my fault).

I still haven’t 100% figured out how I may want to use the service again, but I thought it was super easy to set up.

My only feedback is that some connectors for google’s integration were kind of privacy nightmare the last time I checked.

Google’s API for using AI has abominable UI and set up.

It would be nice to be able to bridge the gap of simplifying Google’s AI/Service integration while not having to hand over access to every Google service I use.

I don’t know that this qualifies as enshitification… on one hand, the author created something that scratched his own itch, shared it, and now it’s become a tool that he wishes to steward into a way where he can make money.

I don’t know that these are terrible things inherently, it kind of depends if he wishes to extract as money as possible from his users by any means necessary or if he’s truly trying to scale it so it can help people. All we have is this article and infinite speculation.

I personally didn’t find herdr useful, so I have no stake in the direction of what the author decides to do with herdr.

Can't make money if people use your tool and are required to share their source code

I have a hypothesis that the bubble in and of itself would not be so problematic if the United States was not in a war with Iran.

I am looking to test if there are several second order effects of rising oil prices and supply chain issues that can exacerbate financial contagion from an AI bubble (assuming we are in one) and, to the best of my understanding, it depends on what kind of mechanisms fail to contain the fall out.

I don't think it is reasonable to assume doom, but I would imagine there needs to be considerations from a much broader perspective as to discuss the possibility of 'a larger capital stock, higher wages, and a lower interest rate' that is paper is asserting.

I could be wrong (I am still trying to assess my hypothesis), but I am skeptical that the increased value/productivity from AI can overcome a rising cost of living if the war is sustained.

Just out of curiosity, why are there no flat keys and ability to construct chords?

The website looks slick but I think from a functionality perspective, there is a lot lacking with this library. I am also not sure what the value of MCP is here.

Without flat keys (and double sharp/double flats), there is quite a bit of harmonic space that is omitted.

Throwing out this idea, but would you ever consider making your own version of Github?

Am I crazy or is this AI generated?

Parts like `No boilerplate, no imports, no build system. Just Ruby being Ruby.` and `The insight behind Shoes wasn't technical—it was emotional` seem to fit a pattern I frequently see in AI Generated output.

Even the structure of the blog post follows a pattern I see in AI generated text with the section of `Why This Matters`.

The more I use AI, the more I think about the book Fooled By Randomness.

AI can take you down a rabbit hole that makes you feel like you are being productive but the generated code can be a dead end because of how you framed the problem to the AI.

Engineers need enough discipline to understand the problems they are trying to solve before delegating a solution to a stochastic text generator.

I don’t always like using AI but have found it helpful in specific use cases such as speeding up CI test pipelines and writing spec; however, someone smarter than me/more familiar with the problem space may have better strategies that I cannot of think of, and I have been fooled by randomness.

This is really neat, thank you!

If it is at all possible, it would be nice to have a little bit better support for metaprogramming namely around `define_method` and supplying a typed lambda or block for the dynamic method. I can see why this would be a pain to implement, so I don't expect it :).

Otherwise, I think in terms of typed Ruby, this is an incredible undertaking with very well written documentation. Thank you for making this library, I think there's a lot that the Ruby community can benefit from with it. Cheers!