vova_hn2

> Claude often comments that my version is better and cleaner.

Every comment I make is a "really perceptive observation" according to Claude and every question I ask is either "brilliant" or at least "good", so...

I have a weird hobby: about once a year I go to the theory page [0] in pijul manual and see if they have fixed the TeX formatting yet.

You would think that if a better, more sound model of storing patches is your whole selling point, you would want to make as easy as possible for people who are interested in the project to actually understand it. It is really weird not to care about the first impression that your manual makes on a curious reader.

Currently, I'm about 6 years into the experiment.

Approximately 2 years in (about 4 years ago), I've actually went to the Pijul Nest and reported [1] the issue. I got an explanation on fixing this issue locally, but weirly enough, the fix still wasn't actually implemented on the public version.

I'll report back in about a year with an update on the experiment.

[0] https://pijul.org/manual/theory.html

[1] https://nest.pijul.com/pijul/manual/discussions/46

93% - 95% accuracy and it wasn't even a good quality recording

> When trained on keystrokes recorded by a nearby phone, the classifier achieved an accuracy of 95%, the highest accuracy seen without the use of a language model. When trained on keystrokes recorded using the video-conferencing software Zoom, an accuracy of 93% was achieved, a new best for the medium.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01074

I don't know, I personally use Linux for almost everything (it has been my main OS for the last 10+ years), but I do not feel entitled to contributions that other people gift me for free.

Every time something works as intended on the first try without me having to manually configure it first, it always feels like magic.

They want you to become dependent on Claude Code, so that later they can milk you.

Yes, but I think that there is a big difference. In the case you linked, hiQ were actually doing the scraping themselves.

People (or company? not sure) don't make any requests to Anthropic themselves. They just publish code that can make such requests.

I don't think that there is a legal precedent that would make publishing code that can do scraping illegal.

No one "forced" you to make some code that you downloaded from the Internet "a fundamental component" of your system. You made this decision yourself. They even warned you about the lack "warranties ... of fitness for a particular purpose".

Why are you now trying to blame someone else for this decision?

Honestly, this attitude is so irresponsible and childish.

No, this is perfectly OK with the ToS.

I can understand how and why they are able to go after users, who violate ToS, but I do not understand how are why they can go after open source developers, who just publish some source code that seems to be protected speech under the First Amendment [0] in the US jurisdiction.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_as_speech

How can you breach a contract if you are not a party to a contract? OpenCode is not using any Anthropic services, they are just publishing some source code that seems (obligatory IANAL) to be protected speech under the First Amendment [0], if this legal argument is happening in American jurisdiction.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_as_speech

> forced to make the switch

> users that are now being forced to use unfinished software

> frustration of being forced to use the new hotness

> actual users are forced to use it

Can confirm, Kristian Høgsberg and Drew DeVault personally came to my house and and installed Wayland on every computer I own. They made me watch it. It was horrible.

Jokes aside, I think that it is worth remembering that open source developers can't actually force you to do anything. If you are unhappy with what they provide you can always just use a different software, or make your own fork, or by a commercial product instead.

I know that I am stating the obvious that have already been stated countless times, but still. Using words such as "forced" in this context annoys me every time and I can't stop myself from saying it again.

Edit: it gives me flashbacks of all the Poettering-hate back in the days.

I don't see, how such policies can possibly achieve more good, then harm.

A person, who posts slop for whatever reason, or runs bots that post slop, will simply ignore them.

An honest person, who cares about the quality of their contribution and genuinely wants to improve the project will be more limited in the choice of tools to do so.

So, this policy only serves to limit honest contributors, while doing absolutely nothing to stop spammers/slopposters.

Yeah, I also loved the idea, but found that playing it require me to strain my eyes too much and abandoned it. One of those games that is more fun to read about than to actually play.

Myy experiment kinda supports every mode. For example, you can pick C major scale and it will have exactly the same notes as G Mixolydian or you can pick E Phrygian.

Although, due to the chaotic nature of the simulation and also because the algorithm to pick notes that I chose, there is no tonal center, so strictly speaking we can't determine mode.

Thanks!

Very interesting approaches, especially AlgoMotion's. Hudson (author of the first link) doesn't really tell what algorithm exactly do they use.

On the one hand it is a cool and creative idea, on the other it feels to much like being handed an assignment by a teacher at school, or something like this.

And I am not comfortable putting a clanker in a position of authority over me.

Also, it might decrease LLM output quality, because in the process of code generation it will be lacking parts of code from it's context.

Although, it can be mitigated by first generating all the code and then removing some of it and replacing with HUMANTODO.

In this case it would also be very interesting to compare the LLM-generated solution with human-generated and then pick the one that you like more.

IDK, now I'm actually curious to try

I personally haven't made my my mind either way yet, but I imagine that a vibecoding advocate could say to you that maintaining code makes sense only when the code is expensive to produce.

If the code is cheap to produce, you don't maintain it, you just throw it away and regenerate.

After reading your comment, I've actually went to Google and looked up "wooden in ear headphones" and they actually exist! Fascinating!

Although, they still have silicone tips and the wood is probably treated with some kind of varnish for durability and aesthetics, so...

There is a word "Paid" next to date So, this is just an ad?

> maybe jazzband can infra its way out of those problems

Maybe jazzband can't infra their way out of the problem, but maybe we can create some tools that will help orgs that encounter this problem in future...

... that's a software engineer in me talking. I have no idea how to organize communities, but I may know a thing or two about making software. And when you've got a hammer in your hands everything starts looking like a nail...

> The level of trust required

Maybe it could be mitigated by having some kind of council and requiring m out of n signatures to do anything?

I know that people on HN hate Bitcoin, so I'm always a bit vary to use it as an example.

But I think that in such cases having something similar to Bitcoin multisig could help.

Saw a funny video [0] in the music-adjacent part of YouTube about an Instagram trend when man record themselves playing a musical instrument (usually guitar), then use AI video editing to turn themselves into scantily clad women and use these videos to lure people into viewing their adult content (also AI generated).

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqrJgjrBV2I (it's a very short video, only 45 seconds)

> Software lasts way longer than people think it does.

It was true, but I'm not sure if it's still true in the age of LLMs. Maybe we are moving into the era of disposable software.

> Jazzband was always a one-roadie operation. People asked for more roadies and offered to help over the years, and I tried a number of times to make it work – but it never stuck.

Not sure what exactly prevented him from accepting more people into the role of "roadies"...

> no agentic search, grep, find etc works..

What do you mean? Why wouldn't it work?

This message contains a lot of emotions and not too many coherent arguments. What did you actually want to say?

> People don’t enjoy the thought of auditing code… someone else will do it

I think that with modern LLMs auditing a big project personally, instead of relying on someone else to do it, actually became more realistic.

You can ask an LLM to walk you through the code, highlight parts that seem unusual or suspicious, etc.

On the other hand, LLMs also made producing code cheaper then ever, so you can argue, that big projects will just become even bigger wich will put them out of reach even for a reviewer who is also armed with an LLM.

> probably-unenforceable

It's very easy to just ban the user and if your whole workflow relies on the tool, you really don't want it.

> ethical and legal decision

These are two very different things. I suspect that in some cases pointing finger at a black box instead of actually explaining your decisions can actually shield you from legal liability...

Two thoughts:

1. Open source tools solve the problem of "critical functions of the application changing without notice, or being signed up for disruptive testing without opt-in".

2. This makes me afraid that it is absolutely impossible for open source tools to ever reach the level of proprietary tools like Claude Code precisely because they cannot do A/B tests like this which means that their design decisions are usually informed by intuition and personal experience but not by hard data collected at scale.