aleqs

Curious what your company is called (or website) if not secret, or privacy concern for you

I've made a general repo linting tool [0][1]. Originally it's purpose was to replace a bunch of repo hygiene/structure validation scripts I ended up adding as I noticed various sloppy AI changes. I ended up going through a bunch of open source repos to see what other kinds of validations they had via scripts and incorporated those into the tool as a set of general/extensible rule types. This tool allows you to define repo structure, hygiene and other rules in a declarative way, and it is very fast [2] (great for pre-commit and CI workflows).

[0] https://alint.org/

[1] https://github.com/asamarts/alint

[2] https://alint.org/benchmarks/

Shameless plug - I've been working on a general repo linting tool alint [0], which helps keep a repo cleanly structured and hygienic - essentially a linter for everything in a repo that a language-specific linter doesn't cover. It also has some considerations for integrating/playing nicely with agentic coding [1]. This started as a replacement to a bunch of scripts I had in repos that did similar things - but more cohesive, readable and much faster.

[0] https://github.com/asamarts/alint

[1] https://alint.org/agent-friendly-linter/

I've been building a general linter tool to help keep repos in a consistent and clean shape when working with AI [0]. You can define repo and file layout, structure, hygiene rules and have them checked in pre-commit, in ci, or manually. It also integrates and plays well with AGENTS.md - allowing exporting agent instructions from the alint rule config [1].

[0] https://github.com/asamarts/alint

[1] https://alint.org/agent-friendly-linter/

I found myself writing a bunch of scripts and AGENTS.md for ensuring certain structure/organization for projects when using AI. The maintenance, performance, and reliability of these eventually became a problem, so I built this tool.

In order to make it more generally useful I went through a bunch of open source repos to see what kind of hygiene/validations they do - and it turns out quite a few repos have their own scripts and validation for similar purposes - I've been gradually adding more rules/validation types to cover more use cases.

In the process I also discovered repolinter [0] - a similar to tool which is now archived.

[0] https://github.com/todogroup/repolinter

Experience is one of the only objective signals we have, but you're right it's not the only one. I've seen plenty great junior engineers and interns, and plenty of incompetent staff/principal engineers.

The corporations and executives are already winning if you swallowed the concept of 'rockstar' engineer. Sure there are more and less experienced engineers, but even interns can and often do provide good input and spot mistakes made by seniors. The 'rockstar' engineer at most tech companies simply equates to the somewhat autistic guy with a brown nose who's working 15 hour days for a pat on the head from management (and making many mistakes in the process).

Oh I definitely agree that AI can and will help create great software.

It's just that creating great software isn't really the SV/VC/big tech business model or main goal.

> should expect maybe 5x faster cycle in major software apps

To what end and what would that even look like though? Enshittifying everything at maximum speed? The apps/platforms I use regularly - GitHub, Spotify, Google maps (just to name a few), have gotten noticeably shittier in recent times.

Very well put.

There's a pattern I noticed, especially on this site, where people claim various VC/ad/tech dark patterns, enshitification, privacy violations, dishonest marketing, etc MUST be allowed, otherwise open source or 'the internet' will face some sort of existential risk.

No bro - open source and the internet existed long before SV tech parasitism did and will exist long after.

Marketing is really Stripe's main competency and focus.

They can't even seem to get their usage metering consistent.

That seems like an assumption based on basically nothing. There is a lot of code at the infra layer, and based on the stack choices for Claude code and based on how buggy and unreliable ~everything from anthropic is, it seems pretty bizarre to claim these issues are not related to their code.

Okay, so anthropic has amazing AI which supposedly writes most of their code and can continuously improve... meanwhile they have outages on a regular basis, and any kind of long-running work will now consistently hit 'API Error: Server is temporarily limiting requests'. Not sure of this is intentional to force a reduction of token usage, but at this point I need to build around these throttling limits and outages with my own tools to restart/resume sessions. From my experience, in the last 2 weeks, literally 100% of any non-trivial Claude session/work will now be blocked on these issues, requiring manual intervention.

One of my focuses now is my own model-agnostic, harness and workflow orchestration (I know everyone is building these) , baselining on opus, and aiming to transition to Chinese models like deepseek in the short term and hopefully open, self hosted models in the future (which I plan to open source).

The nonstop marketing fluff from anthropic while their service quality and availability noticeably degrades... just continues to destroy my trust in the company.

Why do you assume that any alternative to ads has to be centralized? You also seem to assume the advertising space is not centralized (lol).

If we can build a (centralized or decentralized) system capable of querying/serving content based on price and ad revenue projections, we can also build system capable of querying/serving content based on relevance, ratings, reviews and any number of parameters.

You seem to imply that advertising and marketing give us some kind of advantage in terms of (de) centralization, but that's really not true. The whole purpose of advertising is MAKE people look at ads despite the fact that almost nobody actually enjoys or values looking at ads, whether it's run as a centralized or decentralized model is an implementation detail.

Except it isn't a level/merit-based 'matching and branding system', it's exactly the opposite - people see what others pay for them to see (and what's most likely to influence the viewer in a generally detrimental way), not what's actually beneficial/useful to them.

Imagine if all google results were ranked purely based on advertising potential... this is already starting to happen and it clearly makes google noticeably worse.

Not only is it bad for people and society, but it also undermines the whole idea of open and fair competition in a capitalist system - why do I need to make my product better if I can just spam advertising and dishonest marketing instead?

I believe something like this is the future... fully open and cooperative organizational structures, where members fund projects and all decision making and financing is fully transparent. Also no idea whether it could actually work, but I don't see why not. The open source movement/community shows us a lot is possible.

> can't company B hire the same workers and compete harder with these new extra productive workers they hired

How much of the current tech world is actually about competing based on innovation/quality/merit? I'd wager not much. The circular big AI deals we're used to seeing now are not a new thing - that shit has been the standard playbook for VCs and their startups for a long time. That being said, I don't see why a bunch of these swampy tech companies could not be easily outcompeted on the tech/product quality side.

Another point to consider - how efficient/productive/useful is the typical tech company really? How innovative is the typical tech company? From my experience, the majority of them are focused more on marketing and enshitification, than actually building innovative and useful technology. And at the end of the day most of the profit from this goes to a relatively small number of people in a highly unequal way.

What prevents 10000 experienced engineers from organizing, investing their own money and working to build data centers and an open LLM (for example), and sharing any profit fairly? I know that in practice there are many reasons, but I don't see why this isn't a solveable problem.

Yeah, people need a creative output, not just for creativity sake but something that feels productive/constructive and beneficial to them and their society/community.

Open source is an example of such work, and amazing things have been achieved - arguably far more impressive and useful than any private tech company has achieved ( and arguably more than all for-profit tech companies combined).

We should focus on expanding the open source cooperative model to all other areas of society/productivity. With modern technology, knowledge availability, and AI, I don't see why people couldn't organize at the grassroots level and build/solve real problems their local (or global) communities may be facing.

I really don't see why we need all of the VCs, marketers and MBAs... No offense to anyone but the typical SV tech company structure and operations just don't even seem efficient... much of the focus is on marketing/manipulation, enshitification, dark patterns and other dishonest and ultimately counter-productive bullshit.

We should be able to organize and build open/cooperative alternatives to SV shitware (and not just software) and we should be able to outcompete the tech shittocracy.. simply because it's actually terribly shitty and inneficient.

Thanks!

Very cool project!

> We've developed a unique (AFAIK) solution to the consistency problem, every contract must define a "merge" operation for the contract's associated state. This operation must be commutative, meaning that you can merge multiple states in any order and you'll get the same end result.

Where can I learn more about this? How is this different from CRDTs/CmRDTs?

When you upload your content to the internet to be freely viewable/downloadable by anyone - you are giving it away for free. Also realistically small artists/creators (which are the vast majority) are not making any real money from ads - it's the platforms and advertisers who are actually making most of the money and promoting the anti-ad blocker propaganda, as I'm sure you're aware.

They are free to pay whatever they want to pay, and the devs are free to accept/deny any work/payment they deem required.

Let me know if you need me to break it down for you further.

Do you understand the difference between a user compensating someone directly vs an ad agency or platform doing so?

Or do you think users actually think 'i don't want this creator to be compensated so I'll use an ad blocker'?

Let me know which part is so confusing/complicated for you.

Whoever can and wants to pay is free to pay. Everyone else is free to not pay. Not sure what the problem with that is - seems like a basic human right/freedom unless your brain is consumed by the marketing/advertising virus.

In many cases running something like an online game requires server s/infra , and also requires an active subscription - not something you can generally get around.

Users do not compensate websites for serving ads. Your argument just doesn't make any sense.

Also - negotiating 'a truce with advertisers'? What does that even mean? Granting the ads industry even more power and control over the internet?

Can you come up with an idea that isn't a dystopian hellhole on its face?

> When you don't want the ads and privacy invasion, you don't visit the website.

First of all, I can and will visit any website I want, and I will use an ad blocker while doing so. Second - how do you know what ads and privacy invasion a website might have before you visit it? Makes no sense.

> Like if a video game is too expensive for your liking, you simply don't buy it. Going and pirating it is not a valid response

In either case the creator gets zero $. It could be argued that pirating might actually benefit the creator more - since it would increase overall usage/adoption/prevalence of the product/game. So your argument is kinda backwards.

> This idea that digital data is worthless is stupid child logic born from when kids ruled the internet.

You keep mentioning 'kids' and 'teenagers' across your comments seemingly as a way to imply that you have some kind of greybeard wisdom and special knowledge. You don't and your arguments don't make sense - your own realization of that is probably what triggers you to call everyone who disagrees with your kids and teenagers LMAO.

And for the record - intellectual property is a made up scam, the only purpose of which is to stifle competition.

Maybe take a moment to consider why people are choosing to use adblockers in the first place. And whether having content being monetized through and relying on ads is even a good thing overall (it's not). Advertising and marketing is fundamentally a negative for society in most cases.