I don't see how it achieves goal #1, what am I missing?

Can you precisely describe what the goal of #1 is. For flatpaks an app's dependency can be specified with a sha256 of the artifact or a specific commit of the dependency.

> It is the responsibility of the person running the coding agent to make sure the resulting PRs are high quality.

And

> he's proposing a method for how to do so using agents

Are not in agreement. The claim being made is that you shouldn't be sending PRs you haven't personally vetted to be high quality. Definitionally a bot cannot be used to personally vet something.

This is not a contradiction; it's an augmentation. As an operations guy, I can tell you that well-constructed automation to reduce the amount of manual checking a human has to do almost always increases the quality of the overall process's output.

Of course it does, but that's beside the point.

As a software developer, you must never subject your team mates to a PR that you yourself believe to be low quality. The point of code review by others is to catch things that you missed.

There are multiple lines of defense for quality. Yes, automation can and should be one of them, but your own self-review always has to come before review by your team mates.

And for a dev, that's essential professional ethics, and good personal pride as a craftsman.

However, from an operations perspective, a dev is a piece of the qa pipeline with a nonzero error rate, and an optimal throughput rate, above which that error rate rises dramatically.

As a dev, you'll never merge a bad PR; in ops, we want to help you with that goal, and also have plans for what happens when it fails.

Totally neglects? FTA:

> The Framework is more expensive, slower (in most cases), louder (its fan ramps up quite often), has a pretty poor display, but it is a touchscreen, has a 360° hinge, and is more repairable and upgradeable.

> While the Neo is probably one of the easiest Mac laptops to repair in recent memory, the Framework 12 allows you to upgrade components including a DDR5 SODIMM, 2230-sized NVMe SSD, WiFi card, and even four modular ports around the sides. I outfitted mine with 2x USB-C, 1x USB-A, and 1x full-size HDMI.

It seems to disagree with Dutch statistics because the linked view is for April 2026. While the article cited is talking about all of 2024.

If you change the view to look at the year 2024 [1] it claims 53% carbon free with 2.5% of that coming from nuclear. This seems to line up with the cited statistics of 50% of consumed electricity produced by wind, hydropower, solar, and biomass in 2024.

[1] https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/NL/5y/yearly?signal...

I'm also pretty sure that its immaterial if Haskell does 1 or not. This is an implementation detail and not at all important to something being a Monad or not.

My understanding is requiring 1 essentially forces you to think of every Monad as being free.

Ah! My favourite Haskell discussion. So, consider these two programs, the first in Haskell:

    main :: IO ()
    main = do
      foo
      foo

    foo :: IO ()
    foo = putStrLn "Hello"

and the second in Python:

    def main():
      foo()
      foo()

    def foo():
      print("Hello")

For the Python one I'd say "I/O is done inside `foo` before returning". Would you? If not, why not? And if so, what purpose does it serve to not say the same for the Haskell?

My Haskell is rusty enough that I don’t know the proper syntax for it, but you can make a program that calls foo and then throws away / never uses the IO computation. Because Haskell is lazy, “Hello” will never be printed.

You can do this

    main = do
      let x = foo
      putStrLn "foo was never executed"

but you can also do this

    def main():
      x = foo
      print("foo was never executed")

What's the difference?

> I don't hate git

Idk man, the first two paragraphs of the article very much make it sound like you hate git.

> Over the past few years, I’ve been seeing people rave about Jujutsu, and I always wanted to try it, but it never seemed worth the trouble, even though I hate git.

Also:

> I don't hate git

but

> I have my trusty alias, fuckgit

Someone who doesn't hate git would have named this alias quite differently...

I read that more as "aw, fuck it, I'm starting over". Then, given what it's doing, "fuck it" -> "fuckgit" makes sense.

But hey, it's not my alias. I'm just saying that the way I read it didn't suggest hate, just a little cleverness. I can't speak for what the author was thinking.

Fair enough, I'll clarify what I actually hate.

> Also do I understand correctly that "face" means "maximal line segment"?

In the statement of Sperners lemma this seems to be how he means it. You have a triangle who's faces have been subdivided. The face he is referring to is the face before subdivision I think.

This lines up with the usual statement I'm familiar with for Sperners lemma which involves triangulating an n-simplex.

Pretty sure they meant the word face, that would be the generic term for edge. (An edge being a 1 dimensional face)