Capaj retweeted
Everyone: "Vibe coding is causing all these security bugs"
Reality: PHP, Node, Linux kernel, GitLab. All hand-written code by humans, some of it 20 years old.
AI isn't creating the slop. It's finding it đŤ
Reality: PHP, Node, Linux kernel, GitLab. All hand-written code by humans, some of it 20 years old.
AI isn't creating the slop. It's finding it đŤ
145
245
3,829
70,365
Capaj retweeted
Does any serious open-source project need performance improvement?
Ideally,
- it should have proper benchmarks
- the performance is a real, verified problem
- the project should be serious, and used by the ecosystem
I can send many performance-improvement PRs based on AI and benchmark data.
e.g. github.com/lynx-family/prâŚ
Ideally,
- it should have proper benchmarks
- the performance is a real, verified problem
- the project should be serious, and used by the ecosystem
I can send many performance-improvement PRs based on AI and benchmark data.
e.g. github.com/lynx-family/prâŚ
I dropped my experiment based on Blitz and scriptc. I'll contribute to other desktop frameworks instead!
7
2
31
4,495
I had to fork gnome-shell-extension-clipboard-indicator
it's been too slow. Painfully slow.
github.com/capaj/gnome-shâŚ
it's been too slow. Painfully slow.
github.com/capaj/gnome-shâŚ
0
0
2
118
Claude vs Codex for browser automation
Claude is better at coding, but when it comes to driving a browser codex with sol or astra they are better. They have the balls needed to actually drive the browsers.
Claude will stop at checking random checkbox telling the user it cannotâŚ
Claude is better at coding, but when it comes to driving a browser codex with sol or astra they are better. They have the balls needed to actually drive the browsers.
Claude will stop at checking random checkbox telling the user it cannotâŚ
2
0
3
230
I can't go back to a CLI
this is the number 1 reason why I am using a desktop client rather than claude CLI
ability to easily target a passage of text and reply to it directly is a must have.
moot.fyi/p/m2qu3rk78czlâŚ
this is the number 1 reason why I am using a desktop client rather than claude CLI
ability to easily target a passage of text and reply to it directly is a must have.
moot.fyi/p/m2qu3rk78czlâŚ
1
0
6
320
Capaj retweeted
Since September, we have been unable to publish because every URL under `PUT registry.npmjs.org/@trpc/` is being blocked by a @npmjs @Cloudflare WAF. You can even prove it locally, they've just wholesale blocked our npm scope.
Support have not yet done anything to help.
Support have not yet done anything to help.
anyone from @npmjs that can have a look at request #4870687 from me?
nick tried first but got a non-response
6
19
337
34,787
Capaj retweeted
This is Pele, my new rendering library for diagrams and charts, compatible with the latest Mermaid syntax.
- 100-500Ă faster than mermaid.js
- 6Ă smaller bundle
- No dependencies
- Easy to theme
- Responsive to device width
In pursuit of making Obsidian insanely fast and always found the Mermaid library to be too big, too slow, and too hard to theme. Pele will be the new renderer in the next version of Obsidian, but you can start using it now.
Pele [ËpÉlÉ] is named after the goddess of volcanoes and fire. It's open source under the MIT license. Try the playground!
- 100-500Ă faster than mermaid.js
- 6Ă smaller bundle
- No dependencies
- Easy to theme
- Responsive to device width
In pursuit of making Obsidian insanely fast and always found the Mermaid library to be too big, too slow, and too hard to theme. Pele will be the new renderer in the next version of Obsidian, but you can start using it now.
Pele [ËpÉlÉ] is named after the goddess of volcanoes and fire. It's open source under the MIT license. Try the playground!
294
901
11,543
677,574
Capaj retweeted
In the next version of Bun
`bun check` is a TypeScript type checker builtin to Bun (written in Rust)
`bun check` is a TypeScript type checker builtin to Bun (written in Rust)
69
95
2,077
246,945
Capaj retweeted
If you want to know who survives AI, look at what happened to Hollywood in the 1970s.
Movie Studios used to enforce tight âshooting ratiosâ; usually 5:1, maybe 10:1 TOPS. As in, for every 5 feet of film shot, at least 1 foot had to end up in the final cut (35mm was expensive!)
a rapid elimination of production constraints. Improvements in film cost and camera portability made the old studio rulesâŚobsolete. Why not take multiple angles, roll simultaneously? Set could have 3, 5, even 10 cameras rolling at once. Shooting ratios *exploded*, 50:1, even 100:1 (Apocalypse Now)!
Of course, it also *radically* changed the workflow. Editing use to be the quiet, thankless job in the studio years (30s-50s). Suddenly, they became the most important people on the totem pole!
How do you find the masterpiece hiding in the (literal miles) of film? A ton of the footage wasâŚtrash, of course. But as each individual camera because *less* important, it opened up directors to take on significantly higher risks.
Now, donât get me wrong. Insane shooting ratios were still *kinda* a niche in the 70s. More traditional directors stuck with only slightly inflated shooting ratios (15:1, 30:1 common); it was the more experimental pioneers (Coppola, Scorsese, etc) that hit the big 100:1 numbers. The huge ratios were still crazy.
Until they werenât.
You can probably guess what happened in the early 2000s. Digital cameras reduced the cost of individual footage to a complete non-constraint. Effectively free, donât even cut on set, just keep the camera rolling.
SuddenlyâŚ*EVERYONE* starts shooting 100:1. Entire new forms of content get created, like Reality TV, where ratios can hit 500:1! Massive shift of human labor to the editing side.
Iâd say, weâre currently in the â1970s Hollywoodâ of AI. It can be easy (and cheap!) to produce things (code, tools, etc), but YOU have to be the ruthless editor. Itâs the âmiles of filmâ problem all over again. Hollywood solved it by throwing massively more resources on the editing side, and editing became a âconstantly talking with the director about vision/directionâ job, instead of a âhide in the back office and do your workâ job.
Itâs a hunch, but Iâd bet that filmmakers closer to the experimental 1970s âratio explosionâ directors handled the later 2000s digital shift *much* better, because the underlying principles were the same. Theyâd certainly be ahead of the curve predicting it, and (hopefully) were less surprised when the digital ratios did hit.
Iâm not saying AI is exactly the same problem. But itâs a good idea to look at parallels in history where rapid elimination of constraints changed an industry, and how that industry handled it 5, 10, even 50 years later!
When something starts to get cheapâŚhelps to imagine what would happen when itâs free!
Movie Studios used to enforce tight âshooting ratiosâ; usually 5:1, maybe 10:1 TOPS. As in, for every 5 feet of film shot, at least 1 foot had to end up in the final cut (35mm was expensive!)
a rapid elimination of production constraints. Improvements in film cost and camera portability made the old studio rulesâŚobsolete. Why not take multiple angles, roll simultaneously? Set could have 3, 5, even 10 cameras rolling at once. Shooting ratios *exploded*, 50:1, even 100:1 (Apocalypse Now)!
Of course, it also *radically* changed the workflow. Editing use to be the quiet, thankless job in the studio years (30s-50s). Suddenly, they became the most important people on the totem pole!
How do you find the masterpiece hiding in the (literal miles) of film? A ton of the footage wasâŚtrash, of course. But as each individual camera because *less* important, it opened up directors to take on significantly higher risks.
Now, donât get me wrong. Insane shooting ratios were still *kinda* a niche in the 70s. More traditional directors stuck with only slightly inflated shooting ratios (15:1, 30:1 common); it was the more experimental pioneers (Coppola, Scorsese, etc) that hit the big 100:1 numbers. The huge ratios were still crazy.
Until they werenât.
You can probably guess what happened in the early 2000s. Digital cameras reduced the cost of individual footage to a complete non-constraint. Effectively free, donât even cut on set, just keep the camera rolling.
SuddenlyâŚ*EVERYONE* starts shooting 100:1. Entire new forms of content get created, like Reality TV, where ratios can hit 500:1! Massive shift of human labor to the editing side.
Iâd say, weâre currently in the â1970s Hollywoodâ of AI. It can be easy (and cheap!) to produce things (code, tools, etc), but YOU have to be the ruthless editor. Itâs the âmiles of filmâ problem all over again. Hollywood solved it by throwing massively more resources on the editing side, and editing became a âconstantly talking with the director about vision/directionâ job, instead of a âhide in the back office and do your workâ job.
Itâs a hunch, but Iâd bet that filmmakers closer to the experimental 1970s âratio explosionâ directors handled the later 2000s digital shift *much* better, because the underlying principles were the same. Theyâd certainly be ahead of the curve predicting it, and (hopefully) were less surprised when the digital ratios did hit.
Iâm not saying AI is exactly the same problem. But itâs a good idea to look at parallels in history where rapid elimination of constraints changed an industry, and how that industry handled it 5, 10, even 50 years later!
When something starts to get cheapâŚhelps to imagine what would happen when itâs free!
150
400
4,472
207,694
Capaj retweeted
An early preview of experimental Bun + JSC with ahead-of-time compilation
For Claude Code's CLI: 24% faster startup, 48% lower memory, 46% lower CPU, and nearly 2x larger binary size
For Claude Code's CLI: 24% faster startup, 48% lower memory, 46% lower CPU, and nearly 2x larger binary size
69
65
1,376
146,127