aleqs

Kind of sideways rant about tiling window managers on Marcos in general..

I mostly use Linux + dwm as my daily driver, recently added a mac into the mix (mostly for testing personal cross-platform stuff, I use macs for work mostly), and not being a fan of the macos UI in general decided to set up a tiling window manager - googling showed me AeroSpace and Yabai as the most popular options.

The experience with both of these has been quite terrible, and I don't think the problem is with these projects themselves but with macos and how it's UI/desktops work. Full screen windows seemingly break both completely. Doc hiding/showing is completely inconsistent - sometimes it just renders on top of all windows and doesn't hide other times it stays hidden even on mouse hover. Windows just disappear and can't be switched to. Fullscreen tiling seems completely unsupport(ed/able) - you must waste screen space on pointless title/status bars for some reason . After googling it turns out many of these issues exist in a fresh/bare macos and have been know unfixed issues for like 5+ years.

I can't believe there are people claiming macos has a consistent, elegant and high quality UI... it is so terribly shitty and broken

Cool project, what is your marketplace you are referring to if not a secret?

Also the pricing is not very clear - you mention your costs went down to $6, but the first paid tier is $99/month ?

> The user could log into his personal OpenRouter account, authorize your application, and optionally set a budget, all in something like a Stripe payment screen.

Like standard oauth?

https://openrouter.ai/docs/guides/overview/auth/oauth

They grill their engineers for the mistakes of their incompetent leadership, that's true.

You're just describing what OpenRouter already does?

Open router supports per-request usage metering, as well as per-key. Building user-level metering from this is trivial, and there are many implementations of this out there. Supporting per-user first-class is trivial considering Open router already has per-request and already supports per-request attribution. How important that is, is a big question, but definitely not something that requires Stripe to build.

Not the same at all.

That's what OpenRouter already does, so the Stripe value add here is still unclear

In what way is Stripe a 'high-velocity environment' ?

I don't get the 'transaction fee reduction' arguments. Yeah they can reduce the fee, which in turn reduces profit margin... any other product/service in a similar position can do the same... it's not some sort of free win

Every token/llm provider already has usage metering...so not sure what exactly you're imagining stripe adds here

Reddit is like 98% bots and 2% mods at this point

Your love/adoration of Stripe and Patrick seems irrational. Yeah Stripe built a decent payments API, but nothing particularly innovative or ground breaking. In recent times it's become pretty clear that they are aggressively shifting from a tech company to basically a marketing agency. They haven't been able to build anything new/notable in years, all of their new products are external acquisitions. All creative/innovative engineering spirit in the company is aggressively being crushed by new leadership who are all highly political business/sales/marketing people. The technical 'leadership' at stripe is a complete joke now.

> Stripe is one of the best API companies in the world. They know how to serve high volumes of latency and availability sensitive requests.

Do you have any numbers to back that up?

I have no idea if LLMs will develop into AGI, but they can definitely query a database of facts.

Don't worry, they'll figure out how to steal maximum money, datacenters or no datacenters.

Very interesting project! I haven't fully read through yet - does it deploy to existing resources/infra, or does it handle resource/compute provisioning as well? How are you handling keys/creds?

Do you have any real users yet?

I'm working on a open resource/compute provisioning protocol/system (not released yet), targeting both cloud platforms as well as internal, which may go hand-in-hand with what you're building.

Yeah that's a good point, thank you. I should think about how to distribute/make it available via language-specific packages/tools.

I've been working on a general repository linter. The idea is to declaratively define a set of rules/conventions for your repo, (for things that language-specific linters don't cover), covering things from directory structure, required files, file staleness/freshness, file size, rules for binary files, rules around use of invisible Unicode, etc. - which can be checked deterministically. Many/most large repos have a set of hand-authored scripts for doing these kinds of checks, the tool I'm building basically packages these in a fast, reusable and extensible tool, with some niceties added.

https://alint.org/

https://alint.org/blog/why-alint/

This is for both manual/human and agentic codebases. Many/most repos already have conventions/rules which are somewhat implicit and only enforced manually via code reviews. In repos that heavily use agents/AI I feel that having some sort of strict and deterministic enforcement is even more useful - AGENTS.md works pretty well, but it is not deterministic or actually enforced in any way - agents can ignore or forget about what AGENTS.md says, and this becomes more and more apparent as a repo grows - the conventions are slowly and incrementally violated, incorrectly placed/named/structured files compound and confuse the agent more and more - the mess keeps growing. alint does integrate and play well with AGENTS.md - it can export the ruleset it defines into AGENTS.md in a agent-friendly/readable way. It can also explain a deterministic rule to an agent and help it figure out how to fix a violation.

Author here, 'the shape of a repository' refers to the structure/organization of files/directories, file naming conventions, unicode conventions (do not allow invisible Unicode for example), making sure build artifacts aren't committed, max file size, etc. Requiring files like LICENSE, README.md, etc exist. Anything about the structure/conventions of a repo that isn't actual code (a language specific linter should be used for the actual code).

Would be interested to hear what other kinds of conventions/rules you guys find useful to enforce for a repo, and how you currently do that.

Yeah using terraform providers is a great idea and something I have considered and aim to support. The thing I'm building also aims to handle things like payments and identity, not directly but with a plug/play facilitator model - so different providers/users can support/use different payment methods, crypto, decentralized identity, etc. That part kind of sits outside the resource provisioning part, and the resource provisioning part could in theory be terraform providers (after identity/payments is established). Resource discovery and search including - specs, pricing, region, capabilities, etc. I envision this protocol being used to build both centralized and decentralized compute/cloud resource marketplaces. In the decentralized view - regular users sharing/renting their hardware/resources with each other... lots of security/abuse risks/questions there.

I will be publicly releasing everything ~soon (I hope), it's in a pretty early stage at this point, many open questions.

How are you handling the actual provisioning of the agent boxes/VMs? Are you using a specific provider/cloud, or multi-provider? Are there any providers/clouds you've found are better/worse for your use cases?

Asking because I am working on an open/standard protocol/layer for provisioning cloud resources across different providers. One of the ideas is to provide a marketplace of providers/resources via one unified/standard API, which I would allow automatic selection and provisioning of VMs (and other resources) based on price/value/feature/reputation requirements/priorities.

> Apart from this detail, I wonder if there are well established scientific argument that make that "genetics of behavior" the main factor in our modern behavior. At first glance it looks like a wild theory, created by a journalist who wrote self-help books and held a psychology column.

Could you expand/explain this more?

The real lobbying here is the fact that key politicians own combined billions in AI and related company stock.

Nobody would be surprised, and something like that is what's bound to happen to some extent. But I think the current tech/VC cronyism and corruption is becoming more and more evident to the masses, and opposition is growing. There's also the economic factor of US tech being dominant in the world, if US decides to ban better tech because it is too competitive, then US companies cannot really compete globally anymore - they can't outwardly signal that they are being outcompeted.

'we must protect the bubble from popping by blowing more air into the bubble'

I think you are confusing the tiny amount of people who are actually investors or stand to directly benefit from these companies with the overall population - the overall population being generally against AI at this point.

'We must protect VC profits at the cost of the rest of the economy and our entire 'free market' system' probably doesn't sound as good.

I agree that many of the rich and powerful are not at all as ingenious, creative or capable as they like to make themselves out to be, but I don't see a clear/easy way to escape the economic ramifications of the fact that they own and control virtually all physical resources and all political power. If, say, Chinese develop AGI, and that makes US tech companies obsolete - I see them banning Chinese AGI, even going to war, rather than ceding power (realistically there may be some backroom deal), they would grind the population into dust if it let them retain their wealth and power.

The companies in your 'edit' have raised huge amounts of money and are part of the same US VC shitcycle.