Given how precious the main context is would it not make sense to have the skill index and skill runner occur in a subagent? e.g. "run this query against the dev db" the skills index subagent finds the db skill, runs the query then returns the result to the main context.
The big limitation is that you have to approve/disapprove at every step. With Cursor you can iterate on changes and it updates the diffs until you approve the whole batch.
Yes, the user I'm replying to is suggesting that taking on a dependency of a shared software repository makes the service no longer a microservice.
That is fundamentally incorrect. As presented in my other post you can correctly use the shared repository as a dependency and refer to a stable version vs a dynamic version which is where the problem is presented.
The problem with having a shared library which multiple microservices depend on isn’t on the microservice side.
As long as the microservice owners are free to choose what dependencies to take and when to bump dependency versions, it’s fine - and microservice owners who take dependencies like that know that they are obliged to take security patch releases and need to plan for that. External library dependencies work like that and are absolutely fine for microservices to take.
The problem comes when you have a team in the company that owns a shared library, and where that team needs, in order to get their code into production, to prevail upon the various microservices that consume their code to bump versions and redeploy.
That is the path to a distributed monolith situation and one you want to avoid.
Yes we are in agreement. A dependency on an external software repository does not make a microservice no longer a microservice. It's the deployment configuration around said dependency that matters.
Sure, but that hides most of the facts about how it works. There are a lot of parties involved in this, including people paying for it and being paid for it, and those paying probably out number those getting it for free at point of use. Sweeping that under the rug is just a sales ploy, which shows what the outlet wants you to believe about this program.
I wouldn't call using the most commonly accepted (and concise) terminology a "sales ploy". If you want every service to be accompanied by a wordy explanation of how it works, then every article would need to mention that the current status quo involves complicated taxpayer subsidy in the form of dependent care FSA accounts and a host of state-level programs.
This is a good example, because a "freeway" is free at point of use, but obviously understood to not be free of construction and maintenance cost. It is called "freeway" because "free-to-drive-on highway" would be too wordy.
Poll a random subset of people with the question "are you in favor of free childcare?". X% will say yes.
Poll another set with the question "are you in favor of taxpayer funded childcare?". Y% will say yes.
I would bet any amount of money that X>Y, and (X-Y)% of people did not think about the fact that a free government service is not actually free.
Exactly how big X and Y are, I couldn't say. But identifying propaganda and deceptive language is never something that should be discouraged, even when it's advocating for a cause you agree with.
Me? I'm not opposed to it. I think tax-payer funded attempts to increase birthrates in our own population are a good idea. We should be doing more to encourage people to have and raise children.
I'm opposed to weasel words and intentionally misleading people about how economies and governments work. I'm also not particularly confident encouraging people to have their children raised by strangers is a good idea.
While I do find the new iOS a little more awkward to use than the previous version I haven't given up hope on the concept yet. It's a big change and I can see v2 making some big improvements. Whether it'll be worth it in the long run I'm not sure but I can't be too upset about them trying something new.
The vscode integration does feel far tighter now. The one killer feature that Cursor has over it is the ability to track changes across multiple edits. With Claude you have to either accept or reject the changes after every prompt. With Cursor you can accumulate changes until you're ready to accept. You can use git of course but it isn't anywhere near as ergonomic.
I found the instructions pretty confusing because you're not actually moving anything. You're combining the first selected row/column with the second selected row/column and replacing the second with the result of the combination.
I agree, to this point, my expectation was that it would animate for me the combination and updated result after my choice. I had to fill that gap and it confused me at first.
When they transitioned to the app router it was like they'd given some bootcamp graduates a crack at "improving" on the express apis - which are mature and roughly align with the composable russion doll approach taken in servlets, rack, plug and any other server interface I've ever seen.
Aside from the abysmal middleware api you also have the dubious decision to replace having a request parameter with global functions like cookies() and headers().
Perhaps there is some underlying design constraint that I'm missing where all of these decisions make sense but it really does look like they threw out every hard fought lesson and decided to make every mistake again.
I believe the obsession with streaming is a major factor in the new constraints. Together with supporting the lowest common denominator, edge runtimes.
And the reason they're all in on streaming to begin with is because they're sending massive amounts of data back and forth all the time. Like Sean Goedecke said in his API design writeup [0], a technically poor product can make it nearly impossible to build an elegant API. I believe we're seeing the same thing with Next.js, all of these wonky interfaces derive from the underlying architectural issues.
I've seem some game of thrones clips recently in youtube shorts which looked like they'd been generated by ai. I couldn't understand why anyone would have done that to the original good looking material. The only thing I could think was that it was some kind of copyright evasion.
As a fan of the early seasons, I get lots of suggestions for Got clips. I assume that's done by the author to get around copy right blocks. Quite often they also add music, which would make it easier to get around sound detection.
I haven't noticed it outside copyrighted material, so it's probably intentional.
