hoistbypetard

I have all these same complaints about regular rings.

> And ooenbsd pioneered anoncvs didn't it?

That's not really relevant. "anoncvs" was just the ability to retrieve source code from the project's repository without an account, as opposed to being forced to download a tarball. It didn't do anything more than ladybird's public github-hosted repository[1] to facilitate contributions.

Think of ladybird's github issues like the openbsd mailing lists. If you start submitting good issues with patches there, and you do it often enough that they would rather let you merge your patches yourself, there's a high likelihood you'll no longer be an outsider. (I don't know this from personal experience with ladybird, but it's the vibe I get from their posts about the matter.)

[1](https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybirdP)

SELinux, and that was NSA.

This seems to be missing both an ORM and an argument for building without one; I'd have a hard time calling something a "full full-stack framework" without either an ORM or a very well-articulated statement for why that's a non-goal and what convention replaces it, allows for auto-generated admin pages, etc.

I don't think an ORM is necessary, but I do think you need to say what people are meant to do instead and how your batteries are included without it, if you're going that direction.

Anyone got a quick primer on what 7-Oh is? That's a new term for me and the web search doesn't seem reliable.

Seems odd not to acknowledge and differentiate yourself from [apache ant](https://ant.apache.org).

Failure to do so certainly makes me think the new project isn't very serious.

> TL;DR: I dislike private-equity and venture funded companies messing with our security, so I created my own Password Manager which is local-first, free, open source and as transparent as it gets.

I do too! And I appreciate your transparency about the vibe coding. But nowhere in the repository that I've found so far do you say who is writing this. For something like a password manager, I kind of need to know who's responsible for it, and who's reviewing the LLM source code, what they've done before, what their business model is, etc.

Can you share?

Did you read the thread? They don't offer a way to turn it off. Someone reverse-engineered a workaround from the compiled binary, but it's not clear that it works.

https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/73125#issue...

In #30740, customers asked for the ability to turn it off, and anthropic closed it as "not planned".

Hard agree! Not only is it less fun and less visually appealing to me, I think forcing the uniform squircle everywhere makes it harder (than it used to be) to distinguish one app from another by icon alone.

It was originally pitched as a "distraction blocker" and it works in two modes. As a browser and as a content blocker, if you enable it in Safari's extension settings. I've still got it set up as a content blocking Safari extension (you find that in Settings -> Apps -> Safari -> Extensions) and it still seems to be blocking ads for me. Maybe not as many as it once did, but I just turned it off to see, and that made an unpleasant difference.

I think I've been using it for 10 years (or so) now. It's my favorite thing Mozilla has done on iOS.

What?

https://www.firefox.com/en-US/mobile/focus/

The only thing I use Firefox on iOS for *is* its ad blocker.

Sectigo used to be Comodo's CA business. If memory serves, that business was purchased by a US PE firm and renamed "Sectigo". Sectigo Inc.'s corporate headquarters is now in Scottsdale, AZ.

There's no reason to believe they're any less subject to US jurisdiction than LetsEncrypt.

The M1s have the modular ports, if iFixIt is to be believed:

https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/MacBook+Pro+14-Inch+2021+USB-C+...

I've only changed a battery on that model, not the ports, so I haven't verified, but those steps are detailed enough and consistent enough with what I observed, that I believe them.

The piece I linked, along with the parts for sale in the iFixIt shop seem to contradict your assertion. The piece says:

"The Neo has the same modular bits and bobs we’ve applauded in recent MacBook designs. The USB-C ports are modular, so a damaged charge port doesn’t turn into logic board work."

macbooks have modular ports.

https://www.ifixit.com/News/116152/macbook-neo-is-the-most-r...

Looking at their repository, they're taking it that direction:

https://github.com/thedaviddias/Front-End-Checklist/blob/mai...

If you assume that good judgement is an inherent attribute that can't be developed, that might be a sensible option.

I've found that it's a thing that develops over time with experience, though. And I want people I'm training to develop that skill rather than farm it out to an LLM that never gets it right.

Hard disagree. If I only cared about immediate results, I'd just ask Claude myself, sure. But I care about developing people's judgement, longer term. And if they're just parroting back what Claude says, I'm not doing that.

I semi-regularly offer drive-by PRs to projects I like and use. They're real PRs, not generated with AI. They range from papercuts to doc fixes to attempts to add that one feature that I want. Sometimes it's a drive-by group of PRs. Or an issue and a PR. I try to conform to what the maintainers prefer.

Unless I knew the maintainers personally, this would prevent most of my contributions, which are most often accepted. Maybe it's worth losing out on my small contributions to avoid slop. But things would absolutely be lost this way.

Mine (a US 2017 subaru impreza) supports both and doesn't have built-in navigation/maps.

I agree. I rode Server 2003, then after that Server 2008 (which kept most of the 2000-era gui, though the start menu got more vista-shaped) for my Windows development desktop machine for as long as I could. By the time Server 2008 reached end-of-support, I didn't need a Windows development box anymore, and my only contact with Windows has been sporadic, but feels like a distinct downgrade. I've had VMs of each major desktop version for odd small tasks, and have been grateful not to need to spend a lot of time using them.

> Automation helps eliminate the silly mistakes that come with manual, repetitive work.

Sometimes it does that. And sometimes it lets you fuck things up at scale.

We made multi-player games over the link cables in the early 1990s. We certainly learned a ton from building those. It's not clear how much the calculators added to the math and chemistry classes where we were supposed to use them.

> If none of the money is yours it means it is not your profit. A license expressed in terms of profit instead of revenue would be suitable for you.

I like this idea, but the devil is in the details. "profit" is less defined than revenue. You have to specify your accounting principles. What counts as an expense that deducts from revenue to help define profit?

It's not impossible, but there's a lot more variance depending on locality, business structure, etc. than there is with just "revenue".

Of course, I suspect it all comes down to whether the entity offering the license is large enough and well-enough legally armed to force an audit of the organization taking the license. If they're not able to do that, it's all self-reporting anyway.

If you do that and don't follow robots.txt, you are blocked. If you do that and follow robots.txt, fine. That's all we wanted you to do anyway. Just follow the instructions that well-behaved scrapers are meant to follow.

It was eye-wateringly expensive and required a high-end system, though. It was good, and I liked it too, but it's not the same as being usable from pretty much anywhere for $0.

As an english speaker (not a lawyer) I'd have read the "and" in "applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols" to mean that all three were required.

Why do you read that to mean just one is required?

> To me that statement is as obvious as "water is wet".

Water is not wet. Water makes things wet. Perhaps the inaccuracy of that statement should be taken as a hint that the other statements that you hold on the same level are worthy of reconsideration.