turblety

Yeah it's infuriating. I love how even Apple are embarrassed by it, since in the first two animations of people holding and rotating the device they've left off the camera bump, making it look smooth flat.

The entire publicsuffix thing is such a mess. The fact that project even exists is ridiculous. Why can this not be a dns setting?

Hey, yeah I have two rules:

1. I don't want to extend the the harnesses in any way, not even hooks/plugins/etc 2. I don't want to poll, ever. It must be system events, file system watches

So I have to basically watch each session file from every harness for changes and derive a state from that.

Most CLI's have a file per process with some stats like the pid, state, is idle or not, etc, which is really helpful.

Each agent has a small provider that knows how that specific harness works, and watches it for changes. e.g. ~/.claude/sessions/{pid}.json

Those registries are small and change much less than transcript formats do.

But yeah, I think this will always be a matter of keeping it up to date.

I would like to retain support for older harness versions as I go.

I'm not sure. The problem with the cloud llm's is they are complete black boxes that change frequently and randomly day by day.

If you run Qwen 3.8 on your own hardware, every single day, it's the exact same model running in the exact same way.

Yes, it's nowhere near as "smart" as the cloud based models. But it's consistent.

So the workflows and "ways of working" you create will work mostly similar day to day.

With Claude/OpenAI you frequently find days where the models are useless, and days when they are out of this world.

So I guess the choice comes down to:

1. Randomly the smartest thing on the planet with unpredictable rate limits that is mostly amazing, but frequently messes with your workflows

2. A really good local coding model that is consistent every day with no rate limits

I'm not sure. My gut feeling is maybe the right answer is a mix of both.

Gambling on the biggest models, hoping they are working smart that day, when planning or doing very complex work. Then doing most of the tasks/daily work using local models??

I don't like Apple as a company or how they act around locking people out of the devices they buy.

I'm willing to pay double the cost of a MacBook Pro for anything that can run Linux, similar performance to M5, have a decent battery, good touchpad, be silent, have a good display, be light and portable.

It doesn't exist. MacBook's simply have the best hardware, but terrible software/philosophy of software.

So I'd say their moat is hardware in general. Performance, yes to an extent, but it's performance vs heat vs energy vs battery life and all their peripherals.

I think the answer to this is yes, it'll be just like "reading and understanding your assembly". We just don't check what instructions your code compiles down to anymore, and I think the same will be for code.

Did they give a reason why it was declined? Was it some bureaucratic "form not filled in correct" thing, or are they actually against the concept of it?