lucasyvas
It takes effort to debunk because you have to holistically consider what the problem was and actually find the better solution to prove why it’s lacking.
In other words, to debunk it, you have to do the actual work that wasn’t done the first time.
Some people may argue “so what?”
And to that I would just respond that the fast solution implies nobody probably thought about it, which is always risky and generally leads to very bad outcomes. If for no other reason than there is at least no consensus, which for long-term software evolution is deeply problematic.
This has happened many times since this trend has started, and forcing everyone to step back after a year objectively reveals the murder that has been committed that, believe it or not, is not trivially unwound.
In the wrong hands it’s a debt machine that is already killing companies from the inside.
Instead of using SDKs, this will just shift the third party clients to use ACP to get around it - Claude Code is still under the hood but you’re using a different interface.
This all seems pretty idiotic on their part - I know why they’re trying it but it won’t work. There will always be someone working around it.
But I will agree with the overall sentiment - in most places I’ve worked in software when I thought to myself “fuck that customer”, I was wrong. It was actually our fault because we weren’t meeting their needs or didn’t set a clear boundary on service expectation we were willing to provide to them.
So I see it as more “respect the needs of your customer and be prepared to part ways amicably”.
If you want to call that love, sure. But I think some customers can be abusive as well so I don’t agree with that word choice.
I work in a vertical right now where prospective customers are desperate to switch from the incumbent because of abusive lock-in contracts and poor service levels for obscene pricing based on ancient processes. So, overall, I have to agree with Brian’s sentiment even if I think it comes off as too idealistic.
And the amount of information it leaks is negligible - they might know the oldest and the newest and there’s an infinite gulf in between.
It’s better and more practical than SERIAL or BIGSERIAL in every way - if you need a random/external ID, add a second column. Done.
This sounds bogus right? If all the headphones can do is transmit audio via first party operating system features how is this creating a data privacy issue? How are headphones going to exfiltrate data unless they have their own Wi-Fi connection or application that can serve as a bridge? Just disallow both.
Hilarious project.
Edit: I did both Mouthwash Ramen and Time Machine to the Present. I’m now addicted to this, thanks.
I say this as a user of neither - just that I don’t see any inherent validity to that statement.
If you are saying Rust consumers want something lower level than you’re willing to make stable, just give them a higher level one and tell them to be happy with it because it matches your design philosophy.
Writing the code is the fast and easy part once you know what you want to do. I use AI as a rubber duck to shorten that cycle, then write it myself.
But in corporate it’s provisioned to a user account that exists first.
My personal bootstrap is two Yubikeys (for redundancy) that contains the password and 2FA for my Proton Pass. This plays the role of what IT would in a company with a user directory.
It also includes breaking changes in point releases which is a nonsensical maintenance strategy - this is in stark contrast to the reputation of stability in a Corolla.
While PHP may have some strengths, it immediately fails this particular comparison.
Maybe after sign up, biometric authentication being mandatory is the only thing that would potentially work. The security and offline privacy of those devices will become insanely valuable.
Anyone not authenticating in this way is paywalled. I don’t like this but don’t see another way.
I’m not using the web if I’m bombarded by captcha games… shit becomes worthless over night if that’s the case. Might as well dump computing on the Internet entirely if that happens.
And without the web there is no new datasets for AI so it’ll grind to a halt.
No
This is a model that solves the problem the author is discussing.