Honestly, you need a tailored one of these for each of the major LLM model/version pairs. Claude and Gemini don't exhibit all of the same tropes in the same severities as OpenAI's GPT series, and within each of those, each revision sometimes exhibits substantial variance from the stylistic propensities of its immediate predecessor.
I love it conceptually, but I can't get past the abject failure of the right edges of boxes to be properly aligned. Because of a mishmash of non-fixed-width characters (emoji, etc.), each line has a slightly different length and the right edges of boxes are a jagged mess and I can't see anything else until that's cleaned up.
For me, the best kind of "moat" (tbh I hate that word, since it specifically implies needing to design (...scheme...) and engineer some kind of user lock-in, which is inherently user-hostile) would be staying aggressively on the forefront of DX. More important than feature churn, making it polished and seamless and keeping a smile on my face as I work is the best kind of "moat."
It requires constant attention and vigilance, but that's better for everyone than having some kind of "moat" that lets them start coasting or worse— lets them start diverting focus to features that are relevant for their enterprise sales team but not for developers using the software.
Companies really should have to stay competitive on features and developer happiness. A moat by definition is anti-competitive.
I feel this with every fiber of my being. I used to do a TON of front-end work, some of it quite cutting edge, delivering highly performant user experiences in the browser that had previously been only thought possible in a native app. Back in like 2009-2015. I was deeply connected with the web standards fundamentals and how to leverage them mostly directly.
I detoured into heavier focus on backend work for quite a while, concurrent with the rise of React, and watched its rise with suspicion because it seemed like such an inefficient way to do things. That, and JSX's limitations around everything having to be an expression made me want to gauge out my eyes.
Still, React pushed and laid the foundation for some really important paradigm shifts in terms of state management. The path from the old mental models around state to a unidirectional flow of immutable data... re-learning a totally new mental model was painful, but important.
Even though it's been chaotic at times, React has delivered a lot of value in terms of innovation and how we conceptualize web application architecture.
But today, when you compare it to something like SolidJS, it's really clear to see how Solid delivers basically all the same benefits, but in an architecture that's both simpler and more performant. And in a way that's much easier to organize and reason about than React. You still get JSX, server components, reactive state management (actually a MUCH better and cleaner foundation for that) and any React dev could move to Solid with fairly little mental re-wiring of the neural pathways. It doesn't require you to really change anything about how you think about application architecture and structure. It just basically does everything React does but better, faster, and with drastically smaller bundle sizes.
Yet I still have to begrudgingly use React in several contexts because of the industry-wide inertia, and I really wish I didn't have to.
This is beautiful! I love this so much, as it makes it so simple and intuitive to drop into a sense of curiosity, exploration, serendipity, scanning around, seeing what catches the eye, zooming in and out.
It kind of recaptures part of the intangible sense of flipping through the old physical pages to see what catches the mind's interest. This feels substantively different from the current way that we discover and stumble upon things in the modern web and especially mobile app ecosystems with infinite scroll and algorithmically curated feeds.
My working theory, which I hold quite confidently, is that anything that doesn't test well with new users in usability testing focus groups or A/B testing eventually gets the axe. But the people conducting that testing are - intentionally or unintentionally - optimizing for the wrong metric: "how quickly and easily can someone who has never seen this app before figure out how to do this action." That's the wrong thing to optimize for at a macro scale. It might make your conversions go up for a while, but at a long term cost of usability, capability, and discoverability that enrages the users that you want to convert into advanced, loyal, word of mouth evangelists for your app because they love it.
When people who are not thinking in that bigger-scale, zoomed-out, societal-level perspective conduct A/B testing or usability testing in a lab or focus group setting, they focus on the wrong metrics (the ones that make an immediate, short-term KPI go up) and then promote the resulting objectively worse UX designs as being evidence-based and data-driven.
It has been destroying software usability for the last 20 years and doing a deep disservice to subsequent generations who are growing up without having been exposed to TRULY thoughtful UX except very rarely.
I read it perfectly fine on my iphone. Turning the device to landscape and zooming so the article text was full width made it an almost ideal reading experience.
That said, the site does desperately need a responsive redesign so that you don't need to do what I just described.
Yes! This is how things should be. And additionally, I want to see all the keyboard shortcuts visible on the menu items they activate. And every tool tip that pops up when you hover over a button should also show whatever keyboard shortcut activates that function. It's the best way for novice users to notice and the keyboard shortcuts for the things they care about without having to go elsewhere to look them up.
I hate everything about this. We've done such a disservice to the next generations by giving them the most dumbed down interfaces to grow up with that they never develop an intuitive sense of how things actually work under the hood. Evidenced by how college students in STEM classes today are often confused when they have to deal with real software that requires them to know where to put files for the first time.
This is what always frustrates me: why do companies need to bother with "pathological late stage optimisations" at all, if not for perverse incentives in the fundamental economic and political structure of how companies operate? Why is reaching a growth plateau perceived as stagnation instead of success? Why must a company feel pressured to grow forever, without bound? What's wrong with building a business to sustainability and equilibrium? Why does this almost never happen? Why do we instead see enshittification literally EVERYWHERE?
theturtle32@ai1:~$ ollama run gemma4:31b-coding-mtp-bf16 pulling manifest Error: pull model manifest: 412: this model requires macOS