Can anyone enlighten me how having a coding harness when for most customers you say "we won't train on your code" helps you do RL? What's the data that they rely on? Is it the prompts and their responses?
It doesn't matter what your privacy setting is, with any savvy vendor. Your data is used to train by paraphrasing it, and the paraphrasing makes it impossible to prove it was your data (it is stored at rest paraphrased). Of course the paraphrasing stores all the salient information, like your goals and guidance to the bot to the answer, even if it has no PII.
That's an interesting accusation there! You're essentially accusing every "savvy vendor" of large-scale fraud... DOn't suppose you'd have any actual citations or evidence to back that up?
Eg, When a prompt had a bad result and was edited, or had lots of back and forth to correct tool usage that information can be distilled and used to improve models.
And now imagine if you are focused on this for weeks you can likely come up with other ideas to leverage the metadata to improve model performance.
> std::slop is a persistent, SQLite-driven C++ CLI agent. It remembers your work through per-session ledgers, providing long-term recall, structured state management. std::slop features built-in Git integration. It's goal is to be an agent for which the context and its use fully transparent and configurable.
Hi @tabbott I've been meaning to pass this feedback on for 5 months, and I hope it comes across in the spirit it's meant.
I tried Zulip (cloud offering) with some techie/designery friends, so we should have been right at home but... the desktop app on macOS and the web app was visually unappealing and clunky, and we ended up going back to a paid Slack plan.
I looked for docs on how to theme Zulip (so I could contribute), or for existing theme packs that would soften the transition but found neither.
tl;dr: The functionality was good (Love the threading!) but the UI feels like the 2000s came calling. Some UI polish would go a long way.
This reminds me of a SaaS that existed 15+ years ago for PCI-DSS compliance. It did exactly that: you had it tokenize and store the sensitive data, and then you proxied your requests via it, and it inserted them into the request. It was a very neat way to get around storing data yourself.
I cannot remember what the platform was called, let me know if you do.
There are multiple companies doing that. I was using one a few years ago, also don't remember the name, haha.
I guess it's an obvious thing to sell, if you go through the process of PCI-DSS compliance. We were definitely considering splitting the company to a part that can handle these data and the rest of the business. The first part could then offer the service to other business, too.
Why not use CSS without the custom element? From this post I don't see the benefit of using <swim-lanes> over <section class="swim-lanes"> for example.
Arguably, that would be misuse of the semantic meaning of "section." While <section> is nearly as generic as <div>, they should always have a heading of their own. The author's <swim-lane> already has a nested <section> with its own <h2>, but the <swim-lane> itself doesn't get (or need) its own even-higher heading.
And since that would drive us to <div>, I don't see any value in <div class="swim-lanes"> over <swim-lanes>.
It is unfortunate that you cannot simply move a block of HTML elsewhere where the context is otherwise perfectly suitable but expected heading level is different[0].
Section-relative headings were briefly part of the spec but quickly got removed. As it stands, I would not consider any block of HTML with an <hX> element portable.
In case you’ve forgotten this is a thread on an article about web components.
If the underlying premise of your point was entirely independent of web components you’ve done pretty poor job of communicating it.
So you actually do that? Use custom elements without web components instead of using classes? Are you using in something like react with custom elements foregoing type safety to avoid a div element? Or is this just in plain HTML? How many custom elements does your typical web project have?
Or are you fixating on an irrelevant technicality to make an irrelevant point?
The article is literally about not using web components. FTA:
> What would happen if we took the ideas of HTML Web Components and skipped all the JavaScript? [...] Okay great, we styled some HTML nested inside a custom element.
Let’s not pretend like your original point here was they were barely using features of web components correctly, like the parent of this thread was clearly implying.
1. Specificity - swim-line.buttons vs .swin-lines.buttons vs .buttons.swim-lanes.
2. Future pathing - Maybe you don't need a Web Component today, but you might need one tomorrow.
3. Cleaner - <swim-lane /> is just better than <div class="swim-lane" />
Sounds like premature optimization. And I say this as someone who has been using custom elements and web components in production since 2016. In fact one of my products offers WCs for our customers:
"Clean" is the biggest lie in software development. It's an aesthetic opinion dressed up as objective fact. You think components are clean, someone else thinks classes are clean, and neither of you are wrong, except for believing that "clean" is a property of the code and not something entirely in your own mind.
And using named grid-template-areas stacks the items you move to the sidebar on top of each other, so you only see one of them at a time. Eventualy I hope that https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9098 will land and we'll be able to use this saner way to do it.
> I saw people on reddit say that Opus 4.5 will hit that $20 limit after a 1-3 prompts
That's people doing real-vibe coding prompts, like "Build me a music player with...". I'm using the $20 Codex plan and with getting it to plan first and then executing (in the same way I, an experienced dev would instruct a junior) haven't even managed to exhaust my 5-hour window limits, let alone the weekly limit.
Also if you keep an eye on it and kill it if it goes in the wrong direction you save plenty of tokens vs letting it go off on one. I wasted a bunch when Codex took 25 minutes(!) to install one package because something went wrong and instead of stopping and asking it decided to "problem solve" on its own.
reply