The constitution gives a number of examples. Here's one bullet from a list of seven:

"Provide serious uplift to those seeking to create biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological weapons with the potential for mass casualties."

Whether it is or will be capable of this is a good question, but I don't think model trainers are out of place in having some concern about such things.

Do you think the government needs help creating weapons of mass destruction? There is nothing technical that keeps governments from making them.

I see we have entered the "Gas Town" naming era.

And I though the arbitrary, non-mnemonic, unrelated-to-anything project/app names had got too much ... obviously we're way past that :(

Author here. I know not everybody loves the name. If I was trying to sell it I might be concerned about that. But it's open-source, and I'm not trying to make any money off of it, just trying to give something back to the community.

I was originally trying to name it something serious-sounding and I quickly found out that pretty much everything decent is taken. And even if you can come up with a good name that's not already in use by three other projects, good luck getting a decent domain for it.

I'm also a musician, and I've been through the drama of trying to come up with band names many times in the past. Here's what I've learned: the name matters, but only so much. If people like a band, they're gonna listen no matter how dumb the name is. Do you think Metallica is actually a good name? How about Def Leppard? Lynyrd Skynyrd? The Beatles? Those names are kinda stupid and nobody cares, lol.

Same thing with software. If the product is good, people will use it, and they are not going to care much about the name. I think Luxury Yacht is better than some made-up word that doesn't mean anything but maybe has some vague connection with kubernetes if you squint at it just right, like a magic eye puzzle.

Just my opinion, though. I'm not wrong, and you're not wrong, we just think about things differently, and that's OK!

Personally, I would like the name to be somehow related to the system. When I'm facing a stack of names and icons, make it easy for me.

Names without some connection to the thing are just more difficult. Maybe the name isn't descriptive - you can only have some many versions of ed, edit, edt, vedit, gedit, zed... I'm perfectly happy with puns and jokes - eric can be connected to (monty) python. It's the connection that makes it memorable. Even yacc and grep have some connection to the program.

I've been using Vivaldi browser for a while now, but neither the name nor icon have formed a natural connection to browsing for me. Same with Lazarus (an IDE), no obvious link (worse, it's nothing to do with raised from the dead). But "Bluefish Editor" at least tells me what it does, not a full description, but plenty.

Please publish to Open VSX so it is easily available for VS Code forks like Cursor as well.

It's available on Open VSX now!

I think this a good technique to be familiar with, although in a lot of situations I've achieved similar value by simply feeding the underlying JSON data objects corresponding to the intended UI state back into the coding agent. It doesn't render quite as nicely, but it is often still human-readable, and more importantly both LLM and procedurally interpretable, meaning you can fold the results back into your agentic (and/or conventional testing) development loop. It's not quite as cool, but I think a bit more practical, especially for earlier stage development.

I went down this path with fluxwing, it works really well but it was slow.

Maybe the glut of conventional food leaves the prospect of eating their compatriots less appetizing.

Probably not; these aren't closely related spiders. It would be like a human eating a monkey, which is something humans like doing.

But if the smaller spiders can fight back at all, it might well make that battle less appealing.

Spider fight is wrestling about who does the one shot one hit, they do not hit or puncture in other in order to make just a mechanical damage.

Keep milking the cash cows to pay for the new growth area (AI). Convert maximum % of Windows users into subscription service consumers (e.g. cloud storage, Office 365, future paid AI capabilities.)

Also, they haven't cared about Windows 11 consumer sales for decades. It's not a coincidence that it's easier to crack Windows 11 than it was to crack Windows XP.

I think coding agents require fundamentally different development practices in order to produce efficiency improvements. And just like any new tool, they benefit from wisdom in how they are applied, which we are just starting to develop as an industry. I expect that over time we will grow to understand and also expand the circumstances in which they are a net benefit, while also appreciating where they are a hindrance, leading to an overall efficiency increase as we avoid the productivity hit resulting from their misapplication.

Hello fellow human!

Try specification-driven-development with something like speckit [0]. It helps tremendously for facilitating a process around gathering requirements, doing research, planning, breaking into tasks, and finally implementing. Much better than having a coding agent just go straight to coding.

[0] - https://github.com/github/spec-kit

I think the prompt is a major source of the issue. "We need to improve the quality of this codebase" implicitly indicates that there is something wrong with the codebase. I would be curious to see if it would reach a point of convergence with a prompt that allowed for it. Something like "Improve the quality of this codebase, or tell me that it is already in an optimal state."