At first I thought the KDE apps all playing on the K was kinda weird and awkward, but as time went on I really appreciated how easy it was to search for them due to this. So I really think it's a benefit to play on traditional words rather than use them as-is.
> Seems like a strong signal the money burning party is coming to a close.
One provider who was undercutting the market with non-standard billing model moving to a more standard billing and prices doesn't seem like that strong of a signal, other than that Copilot was underpriced.
It was the only clear model from a user's perspective. Sure, a request may not perform as expected, or end earlier than desired, but it was an agreed to cost that was clear on both sides: 1 enter press in a prompt window = 1 request.
If they wanted to limit what a request can do via their harness, I'm sure they artificially could.
I hate all of the other plans I've seen of here a "credit" or here's a "bucket of usage", and we pull an announced amount from it based on arbitrary info that can't be audited or proven, and most of shat is spent might be entirely useless anyway.
Claude Code has a problem where 1 request could take a significant portion of your 5 hour window, and it's unclear why.
It's much like SEO, where Google sometimes says things that might help, but it's just magic wand eaving hoping something works.
> strictly speaking, it was working before and now it isn't
I've been seeing more things like this lately. It's doing the weird kind of passive deflection that's very funny when in the abstract and very frustrating when it happens to you.
The thing to remember is that LLMs deeply model human behavior. If you want them to do their best work, you need to treat them like a collaborator and get them”invested” in the work and the outcome. I use an onboarding process with every new context and maintain an environment where a human would likely feel invested in the work and the outcomes. For me, it prevents a host of failure modes, and code quality has markedly improved.
Imagine you have 3 branches: local-dev-tuneup, bugfix-a, feature-b
Remember in JJ you're always "in a commit", so the equivalent of the git working tree (i.e. unstaged changes in git) is just a new commit, often with no description set yet. (Because in JJ a commit also doesn't need a description/commit message immediately).
So in a mega-merge you can have a working tree that pulls from local-dev-tuneup, bugfix-a, and feature-b, and you can then squash or split changes out of it onto any of those source branches. Like you can avoid serializing those branches before you're ready to.
I've definitely faced the scenario in Git where I have a unmerged changes that I want to use while continuing work on a feature branch. I end up creating a PR for the branch of the first smaller features (e.g. local-dev-tuneup->master), then a second PR pointing at the first (feature-a -> local-dev-tuneup). It works but it's all a bit cumbersome, even more so if feature-a ends up needing to land before local-dev-tuneup. JJ has better tools for handling this.
Or potentially a team member has critical changes with a PR open and you want to start building on top of their changes now. Manageable in Git but you're locked in on a branch of their branch. Now add a second set of critical changes. Can be done in git but you'll be jumping through hoops to make it happen.
Of course you might say that all indicates a workflow/process problem, but my experience is this situations are common enough but not frequent.
(I haven't actually used megamerges myself yet but the article has me ready to try them out!)
Proceeds to write the hypiest comment possible. No substantial claims of why the model is not hype, just how dangerous it would be if the weights leaked and how cheap it would be for anyone to just start using it for EVIL if it ever did.
I don't think you've nailed it either. He SHOULD be saying "54 days ago, I powered on my computer and opened a terminal. From my editor I reviewed my code files and realized I had quite a mess on my hands. Realizing it was the year A.D. 2026, I decided to fire up a modern tool. I typed "claude" into my terminal. As it launched I told it I wanted helping taking my running programs and moving them from the virtual private servers I was running in Linode (inc) and Digital Ocean (co) to Hetzner (LLC). As Claude used it's tool use abilities it read the files and made suggestions on how to do the migrations, it indicated that it could go ahead and copy the files and run the needed commands but I would need to give it permission first. I granted it permission. Once it said the services were running, I instructed it to test that they were accessible and reliable while I reviewed the glowing new code it had written. In summary, with the help of Claude Code I was able to redeploy 37 services in Hetzner."
I think the parent has a point. For how many other accomplishments is the tool framed as the responsible party? We don't say "cranes built the skyscraper", people did. Why do we shift accountability when it comes to AI?
On Monday a crane company announces it’s pivoting to AI, followed by a quick 600% boost to its stock price. I wouldn’t even be surprised at this point.
