I'm pretty impressed how openai is both extremly verticalized but also building products across the whole depth of that stack.
Not sure if they're just trying to find what the abstractions are worth focusing, or if it will stay that way, but certainly cool to see how much they're trying out.
> If you do need a short-lived, signed token for something, there is a better spec called PASETO which is designed to be secure
Suggesting to non security people (like myself) something for auth that isn't a mainstream idea seems like a bad idea? Not to mention that it doesn't refer any reasons why it's better
Had a pixelbook and it was hands down one of the best laptops I ever had. Sure, ChromeOS is fairly boxed in but the Linux VM was reasonably good and the built quality was just something else.
I wish they'd just make ~ pixelbook with ubuntu... it'd be such a powermove, and they if anyone could pull it off
I was excited at first by this, but the "designed for gemini intelligence"... like what does that even mean
Don't disagree, but the "if you're doing it right" is a big asterisk for an open source project with people you have no idea what quality bar they're at.
And in my experience it's quite hard to figure that out by quickly looking at it.
Not to mention that contributions on github (almost?) never include the prompt chain anyway, so the status quo is even worse
You were responding to a comment about the price point being not that expensive, claiming that "200 usd for a college text book is very US centric", so I assumed you were arguing against that it's "worth the money".
So what are you arguing for? I genuinely cannot tell.
I mean even having linters and everything still creates a whole bunch of noise in their PR section, not to mention that a lot of the changes I make to stuff that's written by codex is not stuff that's caught by linters.
It's just bad/wrong/context lacking decisions and mental models it introduces, that if not carefull will just create a massive mess of a codebase. (I know, because I've tried, and had to deal with it)
And if someone vibecodes a PR and it works, why dont they just share the prompt so a repo owner could vibecode it themselves?
> The price of that book could pay for months (and in some cases years) of tuition in EU countries.
To your later comment, the devices are provided. You dont need to buy them.
Also that's not actual price. the tuition fees are that, doesn't mean that's the price. It's just heavily subsizied by the government. Hard to find sources, but the actual price/student in Germany seems to be ~10k Euro/student/year.
I'm somewhat surprised with Github's strategy in the AI times.
I understand how appealing it is to build an AI coding agent and all that, but shouldn't they - above everything else - make sure they remain THE platform for code distribution, collaboration and alike? And it doesnt need to be humans, that can be agents as well.
They should serve the AI agent world first and foremost. Cause if they dont pull that off, and dont pull off building one of the best coding agents - whcih so far they didnt - there isn't much left.
There's so many new features needed in this new world. Really unclear why we hear so little about it, while maintainers smack the alarm bell that they're drowning in slop.
1. There needs to be reframing of the engineer role in the team, by the leadership. It's not just to build things, but to help the customer. The job of the engineer is to build a good product for the customer, not just to "build", fix Jiras, ...
2. At the same time, get some engineers on customer calls. It doesnt need to be everyone, but you need to shorten the feedback cycle that engineers directly get signal from their users. A lot of information gets lost through Jira's, intermediates, ...
They dont have need talk, just listen. Will they pay attention? That comes back to the reframing of their job being to create a good product for users. If everyone understands that's the goal, they will.
If you have engineers building custom extensions for your database, because your CRM product needs some low level performance optimizations - it'll still be good but less interesting.
The goal is to get some engineers talking to customers, cause they'll talk to other engineers. And engineers know how to talk to engineers. It'll shorten the feedback cycle, and that's good for both speed + signal.
Now I don't know how much of that you already do, and they might even do all these things already, and what you see is the output of the worst issues already taken care of. If the latter is the case, there's some more cross team comms needed
This describes quite well the huge advantage small companies have vs big companies.
(Motivated) people at small companies "care", and what I mean with that is they are responsible and can see a large enough portion of the customer experience that - if something is broken - they'll see the pain and try to address it.
At a big company no one cares. They of course care about their job, but their job is such a small fraction of the overall customer experience, that seeing their work having an impact on their customer is exceptionally difficult.
That's why large companies need to encode customer feedback into a system to imitate feedback cycles. Mostly in metrics.
That's a very lossy way to capture signal, and leaves a lot to be desired, but so far it doesnt seem like anyone has come up with a better system.
half baked? disagree, doing EU is hard - it's a bunch of fully sovereign countries trying/having to agree, and we're still figuring out how that could work.
We'll need a bunch of steps like that, to get closer to the efficiencies we're hoping for.
I do think it's more painful to distribute files when you're a distributed as a single binary vs scripts, since the latter has to figure out bundling of files anyway.
In the same way s3 is different to a dropbox, and a car being different to a bike.
Can't tell if you're ragebaiting here, but I'm very confused by this question because they support an entirely different set of features, and if you use both it's painfully obvious how they're different.
Docker is built for running services, distribution is part of that, but it's core is that you can pull an image and run random service on your machine packaged with all the right libraries, network them into your machine in the way you like so it can access the right things, constrain it's resources, and create our own image based on it.
Snap/Flatpak is built to distribute applications, sandboxing being a core part of it, with applications wanting to integrate into distribution mechanics such as audio, URL handling, taking screenshots, ...
[email protected]