It took me a few tries but once I got a good setup going I started finding all sorts of little things throughout my day I could throw over to it and it would just do it and figure it out. I was then hooked.
Just wait until Claude doesn’t want to be friends anymore and Alexa isn’t returning your calls. Siri will always talk to you but you don’t want to talk to her :)
I'm all for building apps to solve problems, but I would really encourage folks to ask people politely to do what you want them to do, rather than having an app do it for you.
You can just ask people for things! And you will become a better person for it.
Asking people publicly tends to challenge their ego and bring up defensiveness. It would fail a lot more than subtle manipulation like this, and instead bring additional confrontation.
Nobody is suggesting he deserved to be punched or that there are some unreasonable violent people around. Yeah, he could have died. But saying he actually did is a lie deployed to get attention, I can't stand that.
I've been working on a worktree manager for a couple months, excited to share it.
Since agents have become good enough to run in parallel, I've found git worktrees to be, in the words of Juliet "my only love sprung from my only hate" — an awesome productivity multiplier, but with a terrible UX...
Worktrunk is designed to fix that: 1) it's a wonderful layer on top of git worktrees and 2) it adds a lot of optional QoL improvements focused on parallel agents.
Those Qol improvements include a command to show the status of all worktrees/branches (including CI status & links to PRs), a great Claude Code statusline, a command to have an LLM write a commit message, etc.
Like my other projects (PRQL, xarray, insta, numbagg), it's Open Source, no commercial intent. It's written in rust, extensively tested; crafted with love (no slop!)
Check it out, please let me know any feedback, either here or in GH. Thanks in advance, Max
> One of the challenges faced by our Java service was its inability to quickly provision and decommission instances due to the overhead of the JVM. ... To efficiently manage this, we aim to scale down when demand is low and scale up as demand peaks in different regions.
but this seems to be a totally asynchronous service with extremely liberal latency requirements:
> On a regular interval, Password Monitoring checks a user’s passwords against a continuously updated and curated list of passwords that are known to have been exposed in a leak.
why not just run the checks at the backend's discretion?
> "why not just run the checks at the backend's discretion?"
Because the other side may not be listening when the compute is done, and you don't want to cache the result of the computation because of privacy.
The sequence of events is:
1. Phone fires off a request to the backend.
2. Phone waits for response from backend.
The gap between 1 and 2 cannot be long because the phone is burning battery the entire time while it's waiting, so there are limits to how long you can reasonably expect the device to wait before it hangs up.
In a less privacy-sensitive architecture you could:
1. Phone fires off request to the backend. Gets a token for response lookup later.
2. Phone checks for a response later with the token.
But that requires the backend to hold onto the response, which for privacy-sensitive applications you don't want!
Especially since the request contains the user's (hashed) passwords. You definitely don't want to be holding that on the server for longer than necessary.
Is it really a problem? Client can pass an encryption key with the request and then collect encrypted result later. As long as computation is done and result is encrypted, server can forget the key, so cache is no longer a privacy concern.
You can, and in situations where the computation is unavoidably long that's what you'd do. But if you can do a bit of work to guarantee the computation is fast then it removes a potential failure mode from the system - a particularly nasty one at that.
If you forget to dump the key (or if the deletion is not clean) then you've got an absolute whopper of a privacy breach.
Also worth noting that you can't dump the key until the computation is complete, so you'd need to persist the key in some way which opens up another failure surface. Again, if it can't be avoided that's one thing, but if it can you'd rather not have the key persist at all.
> why not just run the checks at the backend's discretion?
Presumably it's a combination of needing to do it while the computer is awake and online, and also the Passwords app probably refreshes the data on launch if it hasn't updated recently.
though what does "static cpu" vs "dynamic cpu" mean? it's one thing to be pointer chasing and missing the cache like OCaml can, it's another to be running a full interpreter loop to add two numbers like python does
That's what it means, basically. I draw a distinction between static code like C++ or Rust may generate and code like what Python may generate.
There is a middle ground of languages that box everything, but lack the rich complexity of Python or Ruby, such as Erlang, and I believe, O'Caml if you aren't semi-carefully programming for performance, that fits fairly cleanly into the middle ground between them. However compared to the uptake of static languages on the one side and the full dynamic scripting languages on the other, these are relatively speaking less common and don't get their own separate "in between" tier in my head, as it would end up being a .75-ish tier that would break the pattern. That is not to say they are bad or uninteresting, there's plenty of interesting languages there, they just aren't as popular.
(I don't _love_ his vibes on Twitter, but he seems like a very reasonable guy generally, and the project seems awesome)