You can finance the purchase to avoid upfront payments. And in many cases, the energy savings exceed the finance payments, resulting in a net monthly gain from a cash flow basis with no upfront payment.
I'm the author of the article. Yes, I agree. I think AI reviewers, in their current state, are essentially glorified linters. Much of what they excel at can already be achieved with linting. However, I believe their edge lies in spotting semantic mistakes, whereas linters are ideally suited for syntactic or stylistic issues.
It's always exciting to see new approaches to code reviews - GitHub has its strengths, but it’s far from perfect.
For the scenario you’ve outlined, have you thought about splitting the 3 patches into separate, dependent pull requests? While GitHub doesn’t natively support this, the right code review tool (shameless plug - I’m part of a team building one called GitContext) should allow you to keep pull requests small while maintaining dependencies between them. For example, patch 3 can depend on patch 2, which in turn depends on patch 1. The dependency tracking between them - provided by the code review tool - can ensure everything is released in unison if that's required.
Each patch can then be reviewed on its own, making feedback more targeted and easier to respond to. You can even squash commits within a pull request, ensuring a clean commit history with messages that accurately reflect the individual changes. Better still, with the right tool, you can use AI to summarize your pull request and review, streamlining the creation of accurate commit messages without all the manual effort.
A good code review tool also won’t get bogged down by git operations like rebases, merges, or force pushes. Reviewers should always see only the changes since their last review, no matter how many crazy git operations happen behind the scenes. That way, you avoid having to re-review large diffs and can focus on what’s new. The review history stays clean, separate from the commit history.
I'd be curious if this approach to splitting up pull requests and tracking their inter-dependencies would address your needs?
Agreed, that's a tough pill to swallow. We envisioned trial period to let people make up there mind, but free for the first few users is another route. We'll noodle it when we loop back to pricing. Appreciate the feedback, it's helpful.
Fair question. We're aiming to provide enough value for the price we'll ultimate target. We aren't charging yet, but wanted to provide people with some of our rough thoughts on pricing since it's a common question. For now, it's free for folks who want to kick the tires.
Sorry for the confusion. It's currently only offered as a web application and only works with GitHub. We are working to expand beyond these limitations based on customer needs / interest. I assume your interest is in a desktop application?
Shameless plug - I'm one of the creators of GitContext (https://gitcontext.com), a code review tool which has drawn much inspiration from Critique and others, and would love feedback from anyone who's interested in kicking the tires. We just launched in private alpha.
We're putting a maniacal focus into the user experience of code reviews, which we feel is overlooked by most tools. Many of the features of Critique that developers enjoy have been included in our first release...
- A focus on only the latest changes
- A familiar, side-by-side diffing interface - show 'diff from the last review' by default
- Tight integration with other tooling
- 'Action set' tracking - we allow you to pinpoint and assign line-level issues to relevant team members and track who's turn it is to act
- Satisfying gamification - plenty of buttons that go green and even some fun visual rewards for merging
Additionally, we've layered in...
- A beautiful, modern UX that provides light or dark mode
- Comments that never become outdated and reposition/evolve with the review
- Smart version tracking that handles rebases, merges, and force-pushes gracefully
- Progress tracking that allows you to see what each participant has left to complete down to the file revision level.
- A real focus on trying to get turn tracking right
We're just getting started and have a ton of ideas we can't wait to layer on. If anyone is up for giving it a try, we're actively seeking feedback. If you mention 'Hacker News' in the waitlist form we'll let you in right away.
I tend to agree, because if Google doesn't, OpenAI et al will. The real question is how does Google balance this against the loss in advertising revenue?
Thanks for replying on this thread, PC. I'm curious to get your take on how this plays out for customers with large average transaction values ($500+)?
Stripe's cost to process and refund a payment, while not zero, is generally flat (card networks refund interchange fees, Stripe only has to cover the minimal cost of running the software to process the transaction, which is the same for all transaction sizes). Shouldn't the retained fees be flat and not a percentage?
Can't help but find it ironic the winner of the 2018 Levchin Prize for Advancements in Real-World Cryptography has an invalid SSL certificate on his research website.
For reference, the previous commenter was talking about AL's 7 congressional districts. US congressional districts are defined based on population (they're suppose to be equally sized intra-state).
I would propose viewing Tesla as an energy storage company, not a car company (JB and Elon both think of Tesla this way). The car is a battery on wheels, and the battery is the product. They're not trying to be the next BMW, and attempts to value them through this lense will miss the mark.
In Tesla case, it's because the non-GAAP numbers represent how they view and make decisions about their business internally. It makes them look better in some dimensions and worse in others. They report on it because it gives insights into how they think about things.
Formerly co-founder of MyVR, YC W12
Proud seed investor in Zapier, Omaze, Clever, Brightback, and more.