Session limits are obnoxious and make Codex much less useful for me. I tend to code in spurts when I find some time and the $20 weekly limit was reasonable for my side projects.
I'm now hitting the session limits which means I can either purchase another plan, upgrade, or move off of Codex.
The equivalent alternative is not "no hourly limits", it's simply less overall weekly allowance for Plus users, or higher prices overall. It's a way to balance a scarce resource, and maybe the least frustrating one?
People have a fair chance to learn resource management in 5 hour chunks, while not being limited to silly models, and burning through all tokens in the first hour of the week. Seems mostly good.
I combine it with OpenCode + a small OpenRouter budget. GlM 5.3 Flash, Luna, Gemini 3.7 Flash and a couple of other very cheap models are sufficient for a lot of tasks if put on the right road. Telling Astra to debug an issue should be a last resort, it would blow through 10% of the session limit, but cost like 10c on one of the open models. Same goes for exploration, documentation, configuration and smaller features. These models are generally good enough, and you can still do a review with a strong model for a fraction of the cost.
If we consider 2020 the Last Eternal September, we may have a funny opportunity. Previously, the internet allowed us to find refuge. Now that everyone's on the internet, it also happens that fewer people are gathering in-person. So perhaps we can find refuge in physical spaces, as what we were trying to find refuge from has colonized the internet.
I had a great experience using $PROJECT_NAME. Another sentence that says nothing at all; but look, fancy and technically correct grammar use! You’re absolutely correct in agreeing with the author. Of course there’s an opposing point to consider — but that’s not it, this is.
Why does it beggar belief? If a loudly woke person started a computer club, would you want to join? Why is it hard to believe that someone loudly anti-woke starting a club cannot make people stay away?
If you want a project without politics, you talk about the great technicals of your project, not go on a long unhinged rant about how everyone else is clowns because of their politics
I am not saying this is the case here. I don't know DHH much, and I don't really care for the whole situation. But using and fronting 'openness' (especially around the 'no-politics', which is political, thing) is a typical way to create non-mixed, non-open community.
The idea is you claim to be open to everyone. This includes people who are judged to be undesirable elsewhere. In fact, you make sure those people want to join by specifically targeting and vilifying specific organization (in this case, you could say Nix or whoever he is talking about). So, by design, you don't create a mixed community, but one with the specific population that feels rejected by whatever or whoever you are targeting/opposing. Because of this concentration of a specific population, member of the organization you are targeting will not be welcomed (which mean it is not truly open). They are on paper, but nobody wants to be part of a community made in majority by people who dislike you.
Now, all this can be used actually for good, for example to create community for the oppressed marginalized or whatever. But it can also very easily be turned into a fascist utopia. It alls come to how you set the rules and how you enforce them within the community, and also simply the people that you are trying to group up. Trying to create a community for disabled people to push for more accessibility within free-software is laudable. Trying to group up people who thinks X or Y are 'clown' usually only lead to the creation of negativity-focused/ego-driven communities.
EDIT: Also, and this is more my (very subjective) opinion, but people who are fronting 'no-politics', 'openness' with no clear claim that whoever they are pointing to are not open, and typically talk about free-speech (not the case here), are typically PoS with big egos who got rejected from the main communities for being PoS and now want to create their own PoS community. See also twitter
EDIT2: Actually, an easy example of this is with reddit. There is often subreddit that I created in reaction of moderation and people being ban from main subreddit X or Y. If you go and look at those communities, they are usually not of very high quality, even more trigger happy on the ban hammer, and have a single focus on what got them ban from the main subreddit in the first place. A very easy example is r/europe vs r/europe_sub. The latter being extremely, if not entirely focused on immigration and being borderline or openly racist.
> I'm going to pass on this one. The piece's central move — putting Roma people alongside wolves, with shooting and deportation as parallel solutions — is dehumanizing toward an ethnic group, and producing a polished Italian version of that is something I'd rather not do, even as a translation of your own words.
An actual LLM response David posted talking about the brand of "openness" he wants to see in the world. That he posted to the hey.com blog, thinking it makes the LLM look bad. Nearly unbelievable but there it sits, so it stands!!!
Fascists and racists and anti-woke MAGAt dipshits and JK Rowling loons are who David feels are being excluded, are who need to be included, so they can rail against others with abandon.
Omacom is a fascist right wing organization designed to be a funding target for a right wing insurgency in Linux, some shitty dotfiles that somehow are going to be funded to the point where they form a beacon to stand and work against the free open peaceful citizens of Linux, to drive strife and bedlam and suffering forward, like fascist right wing projects everywhere lust for. Insighting tensions and terrormongering the world.
It's not even hidden. Thanks OP. It's on clear display.
The wolves know how to use the weapons of words against the free and open and inclusive people. They always have. Their quest for din and bedlam on earth has no real respect for anything but their own right to shout and hurl their rage as they see fit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Earlier today our app, used by a handful of actual production customers, went down for 30 minutes due to a GCP migration to a new project and we screwed up a secret in prod. This was an all hands on deck firedrill with 5 whys and incident reports and chaos.
Github has been having major production outages routinely! There are companies who can't release, can't build, can't view issues, basically can't work. I'd imagine most orgs using Github have been forced to move off of them or create an alternate approach to actually get shit done.
Just to clarify, and I know you weren't saying they are related, but this has absolutely nothing to do with AI or vibe coding or manager code.
It's a continuation of the Shai Halud worm and the lack of security around developer dependnecy installations, which has existed for a very long time.
Hackers have figured out that developers themselves are an ideal target due to how easy it is to trick them into installing something and how much private information they have on their machines (creds, cloud clis, mcps, etc.).
> due to how easy it is to trick them into installing something
You have tools from large corporations where the official installation procedure involves copy pasting a command from a random blog post, run it with sudo and watch it download and execute a script from a random filehost. This is somehow deemed acceptable by everyone involved.
Meanwhile I can't use teams in our meeting rooms, since any form of internet access was deemed a security risk in rooms where customer projects could be discussed. This is in a day and age where 90% of customer meetings are done over the internet.
Anyone trying to follow sane practices in this industry just asks to end up in a padded cell.
> Meanwhile I can't use teams in our meeting rooms, since any form of internet access was deemed a security risk in rooms where customer projects could be discussed. This is in a day and age where 90% of customer meetings are done over the internet.
I hope this is in jest. Are you saying in order to discuss any customer project you have to book a meeting room? So no discussions of customer projects at the open plan desks or even in your boss' office for fear that something might overhear that conversation? Or is this only when the customer happens to be on-site to discuss their project? Does your organization assign U.S. Military style NICKA code names to everything?
As with many other things, AI exacerbates this problem. It’s so easy for many more of things things to happen unattended and in greater volume, and the AIs themselves can be tricked into doing these things, not helped by their patten of “prompt the user to approve 30 different inscrutable pythons and bash scripts”.
I see the problem everyday and am just playing devil's advocate but it doesn't really do a good job explaining the "why".
They hint at Django being a different level of quality compared to other software, wanting to cultivate community, and go slowly.
It doesn't explain why LLM usage reduces quality or they can't have a strong community with LLM contributions.
The problem is that good developers using LLM is not a problem. They review the code, they implement best practices, they understand the problems and solutions. The problem is bad developers contributing - just as it always has been. The problem is that LLMs enable bad developers to contribute more - thus an influx of crap contributions.
The last section focuses on how to use LLMs to make contributions:
> Use an LLM to develop your comprehension.
I really like that, because it gets past the simpler version that we usually see, "You need to understand your PR." It's basically saying you need to understand the PR you're making, and the context of that PR within the wider project.
The "hide" link is right next to the "flag" link. Using flag instead of hide puts more strain on the mods, and is not the right thing to do for "this topic doesn't apply to my interests."
If your problem is that you have no means to control what other people find important enough to talk about on a public forum, in their spare time, or that the means at your disposal to do so are insufficient to make other people saying things that make you uncomfortable go away... That isn't a problem that can or should should be fixed. Hell, the desire you've expressed could be uncharitably interpreted being contributory to part of the problem that has people around you discussing politics in the first place.
FWIW I agree with you and recognize that to be one of the reasons it frequently isn’t allowed.
I also think there’s very few places with the power to meaningfully dialog with and among people who build stuff in Silicon Valley. I have dozens of friends, coworkers, etc who are in FAANG or the newer big tech companies, and all of them are extremely well paid, and most will insist they work for positive reasons. I believe in that most of them believe in other people, and don’t want to build a surveillance society or one that concentrates all wealth and power in a few.
For this reason, I think that some conversations on here are important to have - the impact technology is having on people who are outside the tech sphere, the effect of leaders of our companies on the economy, geopolitics, and power generally. Mark Facebook is a powerful player on the world stage. So is Paul Graham, and Sundar Pichai. Davos just took place - leaders from major economies are seeking guidance from these people who many people here work for. Let nobody say they aren’t participating in politics. Where you work matters, what you build matters. It’s not tinkering around in people’s garages anymore - they’re building the infinity gauntlet and someone is gathering all the gems. The Death Star plans are on AWS.
To pretend otherwise is to deny one’s responsibility - in the short term frequently profitable. In the long term, the pendulum tends to swing back..
But it is the right thing to do for "this topic violates HN guidelines both in letter and in spirit, as well as predictably causing low-quality discussion threads".
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
To the latter point, hundreds of comments in, and nobody has even brought up the intellectual curiosity angle of this (what limits are in place to the Federal government using data from Federal programs for law enforcement purposes? and does it matter if the program is administered by individual states?).
Instead it's just political rage bait, including citing the Rev Niemöller poem as if we're talking about Nazis.
(It used to be part of Internet culture that the moment you compared something mundane to the Nazis, you automatically lost the argument and were mocked mercilessly. We should bring that back.)
I've never had a good experience with individual metrics leaderboards. On one team we had a JIRA story point tracker shown on a tv by a clueless exec. Devs did everything they could to game the system and tasks that required uncertainty (hard tasks) went undone. I believe it contributed to the cog culture that caused an exodus of developers.
However, I love the idea of an occasional team based leaderboard for an event. I've held bug and security hackathons with teams of 3-5 and have had no problem with them.
I'm now hitting the session limits which means I can either purchase another plan, upgrade, or move off of Codex.
reply