Hi all, I'm excited to introduce a project I built to scratch my own itch I call cloving. It helps generate code, unit tests, commit messages and more all from your terminal. It currently supports both local and remote LLM providers like OpenAI, Gemini, and more. What makes cloving different is its detailed automated prompt generation techniques. Your feedback and suggestions are highly appreciated!
I think ReleaseHub is going for (b). The differentiation is that it would be a fully managed and fully configurable/customizable PaaS on your own infrastructure or even on premise instead of a black-box infrastructure owned and managed by the PaaS provider.
Doppler does not do End-to-End encryption, so their service has plain text access to your secrets.
What's crazy about a desktop GUI to manage secrets to me is that it's overkill when doing vim with the equivalent of a .env file is perfectly adequate for many use cases.
Envwarden is great, but with CloudEnv you can do access control via IP addresses, you can grant new IP address access via email approval, you can grant read-only access to some IP addresses... so you get a lot of flexibility over who and when the access to your secrets is given. In addition, there is an auditable access log that keeps track of when and where every access attempt was made.
Malaria is just as deadly to adults who have never been exposed to it as it is to children under 5 years old. However the more times you catch it, the more immunity you build to it. An adult who has caught malaria multiples times is not likely to die from it. An adult tourist catching it for the first time can be in trouble.
I build and maintain Rails apps and grow online communities.
I co-wrote the “Ruby Cookbook” (over 1,000+ pages of Ruby) and “Programming for PaaS” published by O’Reilly media.
I’ve built multiple Rails websites that scaled to millions of users, 10’s of millions of database records, and hundreds of thousands of customers.
I’ve also raised $9.8 million from leading venture capitalists, lead a team of 45 employees, and negotiated and closed a major acquisition with a Fortune 150.
I have a proven track record of writing scalable code and growing large online communities with cutting edge content marketing techniques.
I stand out because I’ve been in your shoes. I know what it’s like to struggle to build my dream, and I know the secrets to achieving your goals.
Kelly criterion never claimed to prevent bankruptcy. It only tells you how to bet to achieve the maximum theoretical return possible given a set of odds and payouts.
I say theoretical because unless you're in a casino, you don't know the actual odds and edge you are playing with (because they move) which makes your Kelly ideal bet size a guess rather than a fixed number.
> That's not true. If you bet 99% of your money each time then there's still no probability that you go bankrupt (it's literally impossible to go bankrupt unless you bet all your money), and you make money much faster.
The huge mistake you're making is in assuming that money is infinitely divisible. Let's say you start with $1 and you bet 99 cents and lose. Now try betting 99% of 1 cent and see if you don't go bankrupt.
It's very simple to verify Kelly's findings by building a naive simulator.
Nice ad hominem attempt, but even though I accidentally switched a minus for a plus, the point the math teaches is the same: risk of ruin accumulates with the number of bets.
You are wrong twice there... sane people make that bet every day by smoking (limited upside gain, risk of ruin loss) and by taking many prescription medicines that have side effects including death.
Using a cell phone is taking that bet. You are betting that 50 years of cell phone exposure won't cause brain cancer. Nobody knows for sure yet, nobody has had cell phones for 50 years. I'm not saying it will or it won't cause cancer. I don't know. But it has the possibility of risk of ruin.
Second, constant amount betting does have risk of ruin even with an edge. Take a fair coin flip where you start with $500 and get $51 for heads and lose $50 for tails. A clear edge with a constant betting amount. In 100 flips, you have a 27.23% chance of ruin.
First of all, some people do play games like that. But put that aside for a moment because it’s immaterial. Look at what Taleb is essentially saying: if there is a chance you will be ruined, and you play long enough, you will eventually be ruined. Even if that chance is 1%, probabilities add over time. 1.0170 = 2. If the chance of ruin is 1% then after 70 plays the chance of ruin is 100%.