whinvik

The key insight I am getting from this is that as migrations get easier to do with agents, there will be a lot more of them.

But more importantly a lot of them will happen because we will all get more trigger happy to start one. On the other hand I also don't know if at scales like PostHog, a successful migration can be tested without doing all of it.

Wow the mood is aggressive here.

Its like a lot of people really want pgrust to fail.

There maybe a chance this was cheating or it may have been a misunderstanding. But now since there is an open source version, why is there still this strong sense of negativity.

I have been working in Climate Tech for a while but not as long as you.

Unfortunately my conclusion is that Climate Tech companies in general have been delusional thinking the mission is enough and there is no requirement to be a business.

The reason I am saying this is not to discourage from working in Climate Tech. The reason I say this is to please not go in with eyes closed which is all too common.

Climate Tech needs to grow and be sustainable both for the mission as well as a business. And for far too long I feel business smarts have been missing completely in this sector.

Opened the link and it immediately shows how it generates so many files.

And my issue is always, how do I review so many files. Is the purpose just to go from 1 requirement prompt to so many spec files? How do I know the specs actually reflect the requirement?

I always feel I come away from projects like this even more confused.

Link clicked. Hijacks my scrolling. Link closed

I actually think I would like to use OpenClaw but everytime I go to the docs I give up.

It feels so intimidating. There's so much stuff going on. Maybe it is good for agents who can just motor through that volume, but me personally, I would want something simpler, maybe an `OpenClaw-lite`

Yeah either the benchmark isn't very useful anymore or V4 Flash is a really, really good model.

Sorry, "Gemini 4 helped with editing"?

I kind of get what the article is saying. But I am looking at it from a different perspective.

The same set of things like skills, and custom tools etc can actually be used to get faster to the a product that kind of fits 1000 customers. But the change is that one can build even more custom things for some customers with those skills and tools.

Last year I built a custom integration for a customer in 2 weeks. Now I can probably do it in 2 days. What does that mean for the future, I have no idea, but surely getting custom solutions like this would be more of a moat not less.

Yeah I came to the same conclusion.

Universities use all kinds of hard to setup stuff which are often custom built. Slurm configs, custom configured HPC servers etc. All of this pays off though if you need to do heavy computations which a local machine won't do.

IMO it would be better to make Claude build out something that makes interacting with the HPC much easier. A web UI, Tailscale whatever.

I would have loved to see more of the harness engineering shared as code. Instead we are left with only the outcome.

I guess that makes sense since the harness is the product in the case of Cursor.

I am afraid this is a very click-baity title. I actually opened the article and thought I would learn something from it.

Instead what I read was typical issues about Agentic CLI's in general dubbed as `alarming`. I would have been happy if the title was just `Annoying` which a lot of `OpenCode` is. But adding the `alarming` made it what it became, something that attracts enough eyeballs to get to the front page of HN.

Thanks. I heard the word ABI so many times but only finally understood it after reading this blog.

On another topic, I also feel like quansight blog is usually a high quality resource for Python related stuff. Usually its more for numpy/scipy kind of stuff, but this one is an example of more general Python related stuff.

Why are the plans and pricing for all these products so complicated.

I don't know where I need to sign up to try it out. What is pricing? Is it API or subscription, what?

I had the exact same experience with Grok 4.5 as well.

What I don't get is how does one use it. Only through API?

I don't really understand what Grok Build is? Is it an API? A CLI? What?

I have created my own opinionated setup but this comment is not about that.

I do think that there should be a protocol such that using these tools becomes more standardized.

For example I know that cmux is trying to support a tmux based setup so it feels like tmux could be most of that protocol.

There are a lot of tools like this popup and I really think making switching easier is the only way I will try a different tool.

I feel like what happens is first they release a giant model. Then they start optimizing the model to increase inference speed and reduce costs.

But then they introduce bugs leading to lots of complaints. Usually the complaints are about models being dumbed down but almost always the labs say they are doing no such thing.

So I am thinking if we believe the labs then they have a very error prone optimization effort going on.

Document parsing is top of my mind lately because in some of the areas we work on the bottleneck is starting to become being able to query documents the same way one queries an api.

I keep thinking the most obvious analogue is we need some way to represent documents the same way we can represent structured data in parquet. Parquet allows easy range bases queries and there is so much tooling built around Arrow.

But for documents I keep hitting a wall to figure out what the right abstractions are. Parquet allows filterable metadata. But what such metadata is there for documents. Then there is the arbitrrariness of chunking, vectorization.

If we could just do this in a 2 step process where every document to process can be represented in a parquet like data format then I think we will atleast have the semblance of a solution.

I see Netflix pumping out tech articles but can't help but notice how much worse the UI experience is getting. Video erroring out, general slowness etc.

Did they just give up?

I finally switched to Zed + Terminal Thread + Tmux.

The terminal agent threads allow me to run in multiple projects. They always run in a project scoped tmux session so they are always on.

And of course Zed does remote via ssh so the agents can run without me needing to keep my laptop on.

I am looking forward to testing out these for agent automation. I kept trying to figure out what the ideal infrastructure for this purpose is and right now from just reading about it, micro VM's seem ideal.

But this is all hypothetical until I get to test it out.

> made the most money

> built the tools to verify, deploy, and build them, such as CI/CD, static analysis tools, and testing frameworks.

Curious. Which company made money with testing frameworks?

Curious how people use systems like this or DBOS etc.

Do you self-host? Do you use the same DB as the application DB? Do you use this for API background jobs, batch jobs, cron jobs?

As someone who uses Airflow a lot but not for background jobs, I am interested in the pros and cons of various approaches.

Not to take anything away from the work which is indeed useful but I found the article bizarre because of what references were used and what were omitted.

The author talks about Intermediate Representation and then goes on about biology without mentioning even once compilers. Things like LLVM IR and ML IR literally have the term IR in them and what the author is trying to do seems closer in spirit to those than anything else.

Then the actual modeling in the IR was done with the concept of Blocks. Which seems very similar to the concept of Blocks as used in Notion. And yet no reference to it either.

> re-factoring a big repo of decades old fortran+C cod

Having been in academia in the past and now in software I can say with a lot of certainty that this will take a lot more upfront work than otherwise.

Academic code does not have a lot of structure. And usually lacks a lot in terms of tests. While AI is best when it can mimic patterns as well as there are tests to target.

So you will probably need to budget a few weeks to establish good patters, docs as well as testing patterns before you can seriously make it really do what you want it to do.

I love using Homebrew but I wish there was more support for pinning. I recently setup a new remote VM and tried to use a Brewfile for my setup. Turns out I cannot pin Neovim and so had to force upgrade my setup to 0.12.

Forced upgrades are not nice.

This is pretty neat.

I am more used to uv than pixi or mise so it would be an easier addition to my workflow.

However I do think it would probably be nicer if this kind of approach used conda packages as a source of truth. So kind of like pixi but without pixi!

Sorry, just trying to understand. Why would I use this over duckdb. duckdb already has plugins for a lot of databases. Is the syntax the advantage?

I always feel like I want to use something like this, but then realize my NeoVim setup + tmux + Ghostty is good enough and I am not ready to learn a whole another system for modest gains.

The friction I have currently is obviously things like port forwarding, in app browser etc.

I keep thinking to try out cmux but haven't gotten around to it.

Funny that its hosted on vercel. Probably because its employee driven rather than top down. Saves all the bureaucracy to get someone to sign a budget item to buy a domain.