For all the people pooh-poohing this, I'm very interested in this business model (bring your own provider token) and this looks to be nicely done. I'm going to try it out. In particular I want to see if it supports payload encryption for the data in S3. I'd need that to be comfortable stashing all my personal data in AWS or Wasabi.

But did they say that about tests they just added themselves too? Had claude try that on me a couple of times >_<

Usually these were the developers who said their code didn’t need tests because it’s obviously correct/too simple to need them. And then their bug causes a crash that needs to be fixed over the weekend :/

Time to make the "De Gaulle was Right about everything" baseball cap.

Let’s not get carried away. He was also wrong about many things. He was a good strategist, which was useful during WWII and helped France massively in the post-war years. His domestic policies were very much a mixed bag. He was not exactly authoritarian, but built himself a strong presidential political system. Which would have been fine if he had been right all the time, but he was not.

Or a "De Gaulle Apology Form":

https://i.redd.it/opw3zv6x4qke1.png

THP again?

Single-vehicle accidents exist.

oh no! accidents exist!! Must ban all cars then?

There are two problems with waterfall. First, if it takes too long to implement, the world moved on and your spec didn't move. Second, there are often gaps in the spec, and you don't discover them until you try to implement it and discover that the spec doesn't specify enough.

Well, for the first problem, if an AI can generate the code in a day or a week, the world hasn't moved very much in that time. (In the future, if everything is moving at the speed of AI, that may no longer be true. For now it is.)

The second problem... if Ossature (or equivalent) warns you of gaps rather than just making stuff up, you could wind up with iterative development of the spec, with the backend code generation being the equivalent of a compiler pass. But at that point, I'm not sure it's fair to call it "waterfall". It's iterative development of the spec, but the spec is all there is - it's the "source code".

You framed it better than I would. The part I'm still working through is making re-planning feel cheap when specs change. Right now if you change something early, downstream tasks get invalidated and the cascade isn't always obvious. Ideally when the project gets built, and then specs change, nothing of the generated code should change if an irrelevant part of the spec changed, this is a bit harder to do properly but I have some ideas.

I agree that, this is what makes it not waterfall. You're iterating on the spec and not backtracking from broken code. The spec is the "source code", replanning and rebuilding is just "recompiling".

I don't know what format your spec is in, but it should be graph for this very reason.

Exactly, and it is a DAG (specs and tasks in the toml plan). Check the QOIzig example and its task graph if you’re curious!

There's a "converted military building" in Bozeman Montana. It's literally called "The Armory", a hotel now. So presumably Iranian operatives can blow it up, and any deaths/damage would be the fault of the US government for deliberately converting a military building for some other purpose?

I've never heard anyone joke about it. It's an obvious fact of the world we live in.

Colbert spent months riffing on the "pee-pee-tape".

Which, as far as I know, has never been substantiated.

So, of course, maybe Moscow has something about Trump. Or maybe Trump is just playing everyone, including himself.

If your enemy loudly proclaims for decades that their strategy is to initially destroy AA capability then roam at will through clear airspace, presumably it doesn't take much imagination to plan to not reveal some proportion of your AA capability initially?

Needless to say even in the USA, dick-move clauses in contracts are not a magic wand that allows anything to be enforceable. Contracts can be challenged through litigation (e.g. as unconscionable) and there are laws (e.g. California state law prohibits non-compete clauses).