tappio

There are a lot of ways they can make the service worse without doing anything illegal. I would not be not worried about my secrets, I would be worried about all other things they can do when they sit at my browser.

The top comment in the post has a blog post which already shows that they are hiking prices without proper notifications, etc. To me it seems that Bitwarden is in a state where the software is pretty much complete, and majority of further development will go into capturing more value.

While "enshittification" might not happen here, its a typical pattern and there are many early signs here. When you selfhost things that just work, you need to worry far less about it.

Like, there are just so many things they can do. Their plugin already knows where you visit, they can sell your visitor data if they want. They can just increase prices. They can start making stupid limitations that force you to upgrade. They can remove possibility to export your data, claiming its a security feature, making leaving as hard as possible. They can start spamming you with all new obscure features and some NPS surveys and what not. Nothing bad, but increases cognitive load.

If you don't mind the risk, good for you. It is great that everyone can choose for themselves.

It works just fine when they do it as long as they want, that is not the point. For me self hosting is a mostly a question of independence and digital sovereignty. We've seen all kinds of service providers turn into garbage over time, so I'd rather not rely on a company that needs to extract as much money from me as possible.

I don't see much reason not to self-host a properly built password manager like Vaultwarden or something similar? The clients keep a local encrypted copy of the vault, so the server only needs to be up for syncing. If it went down for a week, you probably wouldn't even notice unless you were saving new logins. And even if the server got hacked, everything on it is encrypted. Why do you think it should not be selfhosted?

Yes, you need a way for the model to interact with other systems, and a way to preserve memory over context windows. And then you keep poking it ("agent loop"). Poking itself does nothing without the other ingredients.

And yes, you need something to start from, but if you ask it to "do something" and loop it to endlessly ("poking"), you will get some interesting outcomes. So yes you need some initial prompt or task, but that can be "do something" and if you keep asking it everytime it finishes to "do something more". I suspect it will not start saying "no" but rather... it will find some stupid meaning and then drift towards what ever goal it guesses you mean.

I'm unsure whether we agree or disagree on the topic.

If you have endless compute and you keep poking this toy, I'm not at all surprised you get all kinds of outcomes. Even without anykind of instructions I would guess that the models will align towards some goal and do stupid shit.

However, I really doubt its cost effective to do anything like that with these models.

I feel that for some time now, the biggest constraint when working with models is not their intelligence, but their speed. It does not matter how smart the model is, it will make mistakes, because the instructions are ambiguous and new facts are found during implementation. The biggest problem I've had working with software developers has always been the lag between seeing the results and steering towards the right direction, not the skills of the developer (with many exceptions of course).

Regardless, working on the wrong things is time wasted. And again, I'm procrastinating here while waiting for Fable to run a benchmark on a few solutions to a problem I have. We can guess what would work, but we only know after the benchmark. A faster model, with fewer capabilities, would've been a much better choice this time... well, "git gud" they said... and live and learn! Faster model = less time for procrastination.

PS. AI models don't live and learn; the discussion about AGI is pretty pointless imo. It's a tool. Does it matter if it is AGI or not if it does what you want it to do? Does the IQ of your colleague matter if he's good at what he's supposed to do? Or bad? Well... I guess it does matter, as many people are up in arms about whether Astro is AGI or not. Personally, I think we're past the point for that debate. These are amazing tools.

Good argument going here but here is what internet tells me about 'facts':

Its about the same amount of population who have access to clean water and who have access to internet, and that's maybe about 75% of global population for both. Don't know how they overlap, but probably there is people who have no access to internet but have access to clean water and the other way around.

In absolute terms that is still billions of people. Billions.

That can be implemented. Within a session you don't need to know it's the same person tomorrow, so a per-day key derived server-side is enough to measure that someone took 40 seconds from x to y. No cookie, no localStorage, nothing stored on the device, nothing to consent to. Hash ip + user agent + your domain with a secret salt that rotates and is destroyed every 24 hours, and you are on the safe side. Of course, recognizing users across days requires consent. But is that really necessary?

There are privacy respecting ad brokers that dont require user tracking. Its just that people are too lazy or greedy to use those.

There are many analytics solutions that dont require cookies. You can do aggregated analytics just fine without. Saving preferences does not require consent either.

A lot of people criticizing because it's heavily written with LLM, but I mean, if someone produced this piece pre-LLM, would they criticize it? is the critique due to use of LLM or due to the content being truly hard to follow? I read it and I would say, there are some problems with the writing, but its not a bad piece.

Of course this is a bigger problem, as its now harder to distinguish content that is "AI slop" with "content co-authored with AI that is carefully reviewed" with a quick glimpse, and the "AI smell" is quite off-putting. My initial reaction was also negative, but after glimpsing it through and reading the summaries, I found it decent summary, which also... speaks of this thread, of the content of the blog post and everything about the discussion and the strong feelings people have developed around the use of LLMs.

Anyhow, it would be good to disclose the repo with the code for the statistics & use of LLM in the writing right up front. Which model, and why it was used to do the writing, etc. Its enough to say "I think it writes better than I do" or "I was in a hurry, sorry" or what ever, but it really should be disclosed. It reads more honest.

ps. really... that sideways scroll? plz fix it.

Maximizing profit for the corporation is the goal of any corporation by law, isn't it? Apparently not in the US, but for example the Finnish law explicitly states that the goal of a corporation is to generate profits for the shareholders. If you for example give away company assets for free, it can be considered breaking the law.

This probably is just culturally different understanding of the phrase, because US corporations indeed feel to act greedy, and there is no similar level of protection of the employees.

However, the thing is, in the long term, the business has to make profits to be sustainable. If the company does not make profits, it will die. Its the short term thinking that breaks down companies. You can maximize profits and be ethical at the same time, if the goal is to do it in the long term.

I do understand that the "maximizing profit for the corporation" is a synonym often for short term thinking and vulture capitalism, but for me it meant something else. This is actually quite fascinating now that I think of it, because this phrase means completely different things in different cultural contexts.

So I guess the trigger is that "maximize short term profits over long term sustainability" is the kind of company where I'd never work for.

I have used past week opencode go with deepseek v4 pro and claude code with opus 4.7 side by side and... they are both good. They are different, both have their good and bad sides... but they do get things done. Especially the OpenCode has been very enjoyable experience. Thank you Anthropic for all the down time, I would have probably not explored alternatives otherwise. I can vouch for the OpenCode Go sub!

For some personal projects in the past I have used google sheets and cloudflare workers, I guess it could be called CMS, but it was quite restricted of course.

This project has a "shared" backend for the content management and its completely self built. Because there are many clients who use it to edit things its feasible to pay for the hosting.

For a solo project, id be quite interested if someone would build a native editor that can be just hooked with git, so it would make it possible to run the site serverless. Maybe one already exists. "IDE" for static websites.

NASA, White House, and which ever large organizations do not represent the most of the web.

When you have complexity, multiple non techincal users who need to update content, and frequent changes, a CMS is currently a very good solution. But thats just a small fraction of websites.

Most of websites are small, 1-2 person companies websites, non-profts, etc., that are basically business cards. Contact details, possibly a contact form, and few pictures. Thats it. There are likely at least hundred milloin websites like that, which are infrequently updated.

Majority of those sites are powered by WP and various site builders, which is far more complicated than what they need. There has not been good option for non-techincal users that makes it possible to make good looking and functional sites.

Also, please keep it civil. This is not Facebook. People can have different opinions.

I have built a product which uses AI to built Astro sites. LLM builds the sites in steps and make sure that they get 100/100 scores in pagespeed insights. These sites are served with a CDN. You can edit the sites with LLM interface, or use markdown editor to edit sites, or edit texts directly on a dashboard. These sites are static. There is no vendor lock in. If you want to migrate and manage yourself, just go to cloudflare or github pages. These sites cost 0 eur to run, and they always score better in all benchmarks compared to sites that are built on top of a separate CMS server.

I know WordPress is going nowehere and if there is some special backend functionality, that is needed. But 95% of web does not need it.

A static site is always cheaper, and the bottleneck has always been that editing code is indimidating. Therefore, AI actually resolves a big problem here, and this is going to alter the future of platforms like WP.

The limits in the max subscriptions are more generous and power users are generating loss.

I'm rather certain, though cannot prove it, that buying the same tokens would cost at least 10x more if bought from API. Anecdotally, my cursor team usage was getting to around 700$ / month. After switching to claude code max, I have so far only once hit the 3h limit window on the 100$ sub.

What Im thinking is that Anthropic is making loss with users who use it a lot, but there are a lot of users who pay for max, but don't actually use it.

With the recent improvements and increase of popularity in projects like OpenClaw, the number of users that are generating loss has probably massively increased.

This is a false assumption. We will only know retrospectively whether it was valuable or not.

1. She gets better all the time, and might be super popular in the future 2. Many writings became relevant only long after the death of the author

This is not my experience any longer. With properly set feedback loop and frameworks documentation it does not seem to matter much if they are working with completely novel stuff or not. Of course, when that is not available they hallucinate, but who anymore does that even? Anyone can see that LLMs are just glorified auto-complete machines, so you really have to put a lot of work in the enviroment they operate and quick feedback loops. (Just like with 90% of developers made of flesh...)

I've came across llms.txt files in few services. I don't know how the agents.md compares to the llms.txt files, but I guess they could pretty much have the same content. See more also here https://llmstxt.org/

Anyhow, I have made few interesting observations, that might be true for the agents.md also:

Agents have trouble with these large documents, and they seem to miss many relevant nuances. However, its rather easy to point them to the right direction when all relevant information is in one file.

Another thing is that I personally prefer this style of documentation. I can just ctrl+f and find relevant information, rather than using some built in search and trying to read through documents. I feel that the UX of one large .txt file is better than the documentation scattered between multiple pages using some pretty documentation engine.

Tokyo might not be the best example. Shanghai, Peking, Moscow, as per my experience, there is a risk of getting stuck for 2+ hours with car. Even if it was faster sometimes by car, there is a risk of getting completely stuck.

I feel that it is a commom thing. You just have to "keep an eye on it". There are several failure modes with Claude. Maybe the most annoying is that it often uses kind of defensive programming, so it is harder to detect that there is a fatal mistake somewhere. It can hide those really well. And it loves to fix linter issues with any type in typescript.

Im using it regardless. Ive just learnt to deal with these and keep an eye on them. When it creates a duplicate interface I roll back to earlier prompt and be more explicit that this type already exists.

I try to not argue whether something it does is wrong or right. There is not point. I will simply rollback and try with another prompt. Claude is not a human.

Thank you for the hard work in this space! I think it is really important that there is a proper open source solution available.

I just found OptaPlanner and subsequently TimeFold few months ago, as I was searching for a solution for my wife's veterinary clinics employee scheduling problem. The problem is not big enough for anyone to pay for the solution, but big enough to cause stress for whom ever is dealing with manually doings the shifts.

It was interesting that there were a lot of online SaaS providers that claim to solve the problem but they just simply are not configurable for all kinds of constraints of a real workplace.

Unfortunately I also feel partially same with TimeFold, because designing those constraints really requires changing the way of thinking of many problems. While the engine is capable of doing what ever, there is a steep learning curve to do it.

So while the article mentions documentation, I would say that the documentation is far from sufficient for wide adaption.

Personally, I would have really needed documentation about a mental model of thinking about the problem, and then a ton of examples how to solve real employee scheduling problems. Problem written in a format which the business people use and then translated into an elegant constraint rule explained step by step.

I had to invest more than 40 hours to get a working MVP that solves real problems, not just those that are already coded in the example code. Most people are not willing to do that.

What I'm trying to say is that to making planner software popular, it should be also usable for trivial projects. I understand that it's hard to focus on everything, but just providing more information about real use cases and how they were solved and how to think about the design problems would make the market bigger, and bring you a lot more customers in the long run.

I just wonder how I might contribute to improve the documentation. I probably don't have deep enough understanding of the correct solution, but I will look into it.

All is see here is that finding good people is difficult?

Being C level exec in another firm does not guarantee success. In fact, it might even be a dismerit for a startup.

I've never heard that hearing. I've been living in multiple houses heated primarily with a heat pump in the winter during average temperature of minus 10 Celsius, ranging from 0 to -30.

My current garage has radiators installed but I've never used them as the heat pump is just fine.

I guess they must build the houses or heat pumps differently where you live!

We just launched a MVP for pdf data extraction https://excelifier.com/. The service is not open source and relies on open ai, which is probably a bit problematic in your case.

However, we understand that privacy concerns are really important for many organizations. Making it self-hostable and depend on a locally running LLM is something that we are looking into.

Institutions try to preserve themselves.

Sometimes it leads to suggested outcome, sometimes they evolve into something else.

This is just so right. Very eloquently put.

People just want to believe that humans are far more exceptional than we really are. These theories rest on the assumption that this 'elite' can predict the future. That there is no randomness in the world. That they are so smart and capable that they can just manipulate everyone. The truth is -- the individuals which make up the elite are just as clueless as everyone else. Furthermore, majority of them behave with good intentions. It is no surprise that no one really knows who represents the "elite". Once you dig deeper into the personality of each individual, you realise that they are just normal people. Often very selfish, but not much different from average Joe.

The problems that we see and blame the elite, god, what ever for, are due to systems we have created. Institutions, culture, feedback loops; everything that exists when large groups of individuals exist together.

We are privileged with my wife. Our combined workload is ~7 days per week, and our two kids are in the kindergarten 4 days per week. I work usually 3 days and my wife 4. This is not possible for most families, but I can highly recommend cutting the total hours if possible.

Sounds very similar for me. It is pretty annoying sometimes, especially on remote meetings. I think it is some kind of ADHD tendency.

My comment came out quite black and white, the reality is of course very nuanced. I personally have hard time focusing. Even if I find the topic interesting I'm constantly switching attention, unless there is a strong immersion, like with development work.

My point was just that the "life hacks" of learning are quite useless if you are not interested or disciplined in the first place, and if you are... you unlikely need them. At least my personal experience is that when the topic is interesting and I have motivation, I usually "find a way" to learn more.