I concur. I cannot accept that we are so disconnected from what we're building that we can't go back and revise our commits or something else to make it make sense.
Why is this a service and not an open source project? It doesn't seem to do much other than organize your commits within a PR (could be run once on a dev machine and shipped in the code, then displayed separately) and builds a dashboard for PRs that's not too far off from what github already offers, but could also be represented with fairly small structured data and displayed separately.
this is for AI agent work though. That's cool, but not every team that wants better UX for complex work uses agents. Even if it "just works" for real scenarios, the marketing could be better.
Fair. There are users who simply just use the diff and integrated GitHub view/comment/approval-sync experience for local reviews of PRs. But it's _marketed_ as an integrated agent experience.
"Building" is always easier when you have a community that is ready and able to rout out bugs and suggest new features. Closed source makes that much less practical and appealing for most.
Totally get that, still something we're actively talking about!
Sort of related to that, we've been thinking a lot about the future of code review for OSS. Its clear with Cal.com going closed source that something needs to change. Would love to hear any thoughts you have
When I try to discuss critical thinking skills with some of my peers and with one of my older brothers, this is dismissed as being in line with critical theory / CRT / doublethink from 1984.
There is apparently an ideological component to critical thinking. If you are supposed to analyze the world through the lens of what you consider the "one true set of ideas", being critical and "seeing both sides", or even working through the reasoning of others is seen as a violation of the highest order.
I work in between two teams that would prefer no code review except for by pair programming (militantly arguing that this is the only true trunk based development, those small PRs are something else) and a team that every individual wants to own the dev cycle end to end. So its either pushes to main youre forced to catch up on that you had no alerts or knowledge of, or +6000 -500 diff PRs with way too many features and no story to tell in the commits.
Maybe this tool would help, but nothing in this pitch convinces me.
I appreciate the push for an official rust frontend. I've personally been migrating (slowly) to using nix to manage my Mac's software, but there are a ton of limitations which lead me to rely on homebrew anyway. The speed ups will be appreciated.
> I appreciate the push for an official rust frontend
Why? I think I am seriously starting to contract as case of FOMO. I feel like Rust is rapidly gaining territory everyday. I mean, that's fine and all, I suppose. I have never used it, so I have no real opinions on the language.
There was no "telemetry" in uv to begin with. They're just aiming for an emotional response. Read about the "telemetry" they removed and you'll find it funny.
> There was no "telemetry" in uv to begin with. They're just aiming for an emotional response. Read about the "telemetry" they removed and you'll find it funny.
I would personally prefer it be spelled out better, but I assume we're looking at this:
> uv was sending a surprising amount of info to package indexes every time you installed something. These things include your OS, py version, CPU architecture, Linux distro, whether you're in CI. All baked into the User-Agent header via something called "linehaul". We ripped that out. Now it just sends fyn/0.10.13. That's it.
Unless you're disputing the factual angle (I confess I tried to look at the commits, saw that the first couple commits in the repo changed over a thousand files, and gave up)... yes? I would describe sending OS, python version, CPU arch, and CI yes/no as telemetry. I guess we can quibble about whether there's a more precise term for this particular form of sending information about your machine to a remote target without asking, but the description seems fair enough.
Theyre saying "we removed telemetry" with the hopes of getting an emotional response from people who are privacy-focused, to get quick stars/attention.
If I werent more critical, I would have read this as an astroturf by big tech sort of thing. Like "it's inevitable that big tech will win, and so therefore syndicate everywhere or you have lost the game." I dont really get what game we're playing though. Why do I care if my friend who only uses Facebook sees my blog posts? What do I get from that other than the feeling of a maybe-connection (much like their criticism of federated networks - youre hoping for a future where this works out for you.)
I dont post on federated networks yet but I would rather share in my principles with those willing to listen than to throw up my hands and share my stuff everywhere.
> I dont post on federated networks yet but I would rather share in my principles with those willing to listen than to throw up my hands and share my stuff everywhere.
This is an interesting view point and I agree and disagree. I imagine people are split. There are clearly people who put stuff on the web and want to get it into all eyeballs whether those eyeballs want it or not. I see the logic and appeal behind that: if you really believe in what you're writing, why wouldn't you want everyone to have a read? If you don't want everyone to read what you're writing, why put it on the Web of all places?
In reality though, the older I get, the more fear I have about posting online, especially on a personal website, through fear of being rude, or imposing, or coming across like some sort of narcissistic influencer. It feels like a sign of self awareness and maturity to believe that not everyone wants to read what you have to say.
>if you really believe in what you're writing, why wouldn't you want everyone to have a read?
I write in public so that there’s a time stamped publicly accessible record of my opinion that I can reference quickly for people I’m communicating with. It’s like a public ledger
I don’t really care how many people read my writing because it’s illegible to 99.999999% of humans (I’d guess there are about 7000 ppl on earth who could grok my work). Not everything is for everyone. Just because I publish doesn’t mean I want everyone to read my stuff
Yeah, I agree with your approach entirely - it feels like the mature option compared to the young influencer view that you want everyone to read your opinion.
Seeing it as a public ledger, rather than a platform or podium means you might not even want people to read it, but you do need everyone to be able to for it to act as a valid public ledger.
Maybe no one wakes up wanting to deal with compliance, but it you found a company that has legal or moral obligations to be compliant with these standards, you sure have signed yourself up for it. Passing the responsibility off to some other company is, quite simply, irresponsible.
> Passing the responsibility off to some other company is, quite simply, irresponsible.
Then do not pass the responsibility. But here's the trick: the regulator would like to see an audit done by a firm and purchasing audit services is exactly that: passing responsibility. So legally you can't be compliant unless you passed responsibility.
These compliance companies are not primarily tasked with auditing, as this article makes very clear. Delve is in control of the auditing process in a way that is inappropriate and unusual for this industry. The work that the company with these obligations should be doing themselves is generating the Section 3 description and the controls. The auditor then independently verifies their compliance with the controls. Thats a clear delineation of responsibilty, IMO
Problem is, compliance is often detrimental to the cause. You want to encrypt users' data at rest? Illegal. You must store users data in a way prescribed by the law and it is extremely cumbersome, outdated and insecure.
reply