varelaseb

Why would it ever be impossible/unbelievable? The whole point is it was commonplace for this type of person.

It's just surprising that the number's that large.

Plus no way that's getting VC money

It's not so much about what you _can do_ but about the messaging and posturing, which is what drives the adoption of standards as a social phenomenon.

My team's been working on implementing MCP-agents and agents-as-tools and we consistently saw confusion from everyone we were selling this into (who were already bought in to hosting an MCP server for their API or SDK) for their agents because "that's not what it's for".

Kinda weird, but kinda simple.

It's not so much about what you _can do_ but about the messaging and posturing, which is what drives the adoption of standards as a social phenomenon.

My team's been working on implementing MCP-agents and agents-as-tools and we consistently saw confusion from everyone we were selling this into (who were already bought in to hosting an MCP server for their API or SDK) for their agents because "that's not what it's for".

Kinda weird, but kinda simple.

It's not so much about what you _can do_ but about the messaging and posturing, which is what drives the adoption of standards as a social phenomenon.

My team's been working on implementing MCP-agents and agents-as-tools and we consistently saw confusion from everyone we were selling this into (who were already bought in to hosting an MCP server for their API or SDK) for their agents because "that's not what it's for".

Kinda weird, but kinda simple.

It's not so much about what you _can do_ but about the messaging and posturing, which is what drives the adoption of standards as a social phenomenon. My team's been working on implementing MCP-agents and agents-as-tools and we consistently saw confusion from everyone we were selling this into (who were already bought in to hosting an MCP server for their API or SDK) for their agents because "that's not what it's for".

Kinda weird, but kinda simple.

Would you mind describing the process for this in a bit more detail?

This is literally not true. You can leverage MCP using any model. Even some of the IDEs you mention let you leverage MCP using many model providers.

Hi Will!

Thanks for taking the time to reply to this.

Now that I have the context, I find what you're doing super interesting, and well thought out. And greatly value the passion you're building it with as well.

I want to clarify, my message wasn't intended as a dig at what you are doing - especially since I didn't actually look into it at all before writing my reply.

By definition, and especially when explained with enough detail, anything that we do couldn't be done with a different tool, in the sense it'd have to be done differently.

What my comment was meant to address was the original comment's question regarding the value of doing something "on-chain". Mainly because it's something that I've been thinking about a lot, being a founder as well in a similarly-hyped vertical.

At it's core, blockchains are a database, and so any high level goal - beyond the composability/interoperability of on-chain primitives through tokens and shared state - can be achieved without a blockchain.

However, there are many reasons to leverage the position of a blockchain project beyond the technical _need_ for a DLT.

The VC environment might be attractive to some -leveraging the network effects of a sufficiently decentralized network, tapping into ecosystem incentives and growth programs, personal alignment with the moral values typically associated with decentralization, personal connections in the industry/vertical, etc.

All that to say; no one asks why you're using a relational database or a graph database with as much suspicion or caution as they do why you're putting your stuff on-chain, and while that makes sense because of the... unique circumstances of DLTs, there's a lot more nuance to it from a business perspective than just asking yourself the "is it a grift?" question.

Just a random thought:

Understanding the limitations is a complicated thing in tech. You can finnangle most systems into doing mostly anything, as inefficient as that may prove to be.

The question then becomes up to what point is it "a reasonably better than most others" solution. And that's a question of an understanding of a field, not a space in the field.

Take this with a grain of salt, as I run a startup in the industry.

Blockchain has taken a weird path. It started with Bitcoin offering something genuinely new - a Byzantine fault-tolerant mechanism for decentralized value exchange without trusted intermediaries. But the industry has drifted toward "web3" hype where the technology often isn't necessary.

Companies pick tech stacks for all sorts of reasons beyond technical merit - vendor relationships, development velocity, legacy system compatibility, and UX considerations all factor into these decisions.

Truth is, most blockchain companies today are solving problems that could be handled just fine with traditional databases and APIs. The industry is shifting toward abstraction layers that hide the consensus mechanisms anyway, focusing on user experience instead.

The project mentioned probably doesn't actually need a blockchain backend for what it's doing, except maybe for tradable collectibles on an ERC standard.

LLMs have without a doubt replaced NER models and libraries like SpaCy. At least for my use-cases, creating ontologies and populating knowledge graphs.

Any thoughts on making this open source / open contribution? I know myself and apparently others here are very into this, but have some things we'd like to tweak! Like the ability to edit world events, for example.

Is this published anywhere?

Are you... is this the micro-bus?

What else do you want them to be?

This is the most econ-brained response possible. Why would the success of a public policy be exclusively defined by revenue generated?

This is the worst gotcha I've ever seen

I don't think it's an autocorrect error. Cop doesn't get turned into cope. I think the guy just think's it's "cope out" from seeing the word cope thrown around in similar contexts.

Absolute cope. Objectively wrong.

You pay more. Boohoo

I think there's a very concrete difference between this and your examples

Raycast packages a few of these into a modern app as well. Clipboard, Searching files, Window management. Very lightweight though part of a different generation so more "bloated" in some people's eyes. Low resources used though.

Could you share some more info on that prediction? I'd love to read up

Optimizing for "green" is not what we're trying to achieve here. Mountains get greener when the tree line climbs as a sign of it's ecological decline. Stable forest and weather systems, biodiversity, bioavailability of nutrients in the ground are things closer to the interest of ecological causes.

I think what they're getting at is the most common limiting factor for plant growth is almost never CO2. It's usually Nitrogen, or another two of the macro (P,K) or micronutrients.