It all dates back to the Andrew Messaging System at CMU, developed in the 1980's. Originally the format was "<username>+<keyword>+<args>@example.net" where the mail server would interpret the keyword and arguments to route the message in whatever unique way that keyword would dictate (e.g. bob+dist+~/mailinglist@example.net would read the file mailinglist in Bob's home directory and deliver the email to addresses listed in it). If the keyword was not recognized, it would just deliver normally. So bob@example.net and bob+alias@example.net were equivalent, and could be used to filter after the fact if desired.
It's my primary. Claude Code for personal stuff on the weekends. I really just prefer the GUI of having the changes easily highlighted. If I can get something to apply that with Claude Code or Codex or OpenCode or whatever, I'd swap over without thinking.
Same here - their UI/UX seems to serve my workflows/habits the best. And it's strange that no one else seems to be delivering a compatible experience for me. I'd prefer to move away from Cursor after this acquisition.
I think it's a generally good place to start when buying anything, especially anything of high value. You want to be able to truly own it, which includes maintaining and repairing it.
Now of course there are areas you can make trade offs. A lot of people like MacBooks despite them not supporting other operating systems very well and Apple still mostly being hardasses about outside repair, but they come with good performance and battery life.
Making sure to keep maintainability in mind when making a product decision is critical to making an informed purchase.
IMO Writing correct software the first time around - so formal methods.
But the tooling isn't there yet (though lightweight versions, e.g. strong type systems like rust's, are and significantly reduce the security issue load).
> About six months later, it is his frequent bemoaning at the standup that their PR don't get reviewed, languishing in inattention
What irks me the most with this new trend is when people don't review the code themselves thoroughly enough and you're pointing out obvious flaws that you know that they should be aware of. LLMs can be such a great tool, but it's unfair to make people review your code before you've even seemingly looked at it yourself.
Do other RDBMSs have this? I genuinely have no clue. I've been fortunate enough to be able to get away with one primary and multiple secondaries at my largest usage of Postgres. Multi-master is the kind of thing I am fully out of my depth on, so I'm curious if there's a well defined path for implementation here or what.
Commercial RDBMS (oracle/mssql) have had it in some form for awhile, with pluses and minuses. Open source DBs have had bolt-ons, including BDR for pgsql.
Multi-master is hard. The main issue is what to do with commit/replication lag. It's far "easier" if support for eventual consistency is ok with your use case. In some cases it's not. Also, the problems related to read-only lag can happen on multi-master instances. If somebody does a giant long running query on one of the masters, the target instance needs to hold the data state for the query, even if the underlying DB is getting updates. It also needs to still keep up with other masters. This means the whole cluster can slow down if the multi-master replication is synchronous. Depending on a variety of factors, that can chew up disk space, memory, etc.
There are ways of dealing with these issues (and others), but it comes with tradeoffs with performance, etc.
> it's another to parade around Image Generation features that are obviously widely not-cared-for and oftentimes actively disliked
I mean, that was one of many things, and I'd argue the least interesting by far. If the Safari extension creation thing is decent at all, that's a seriously cool addition. There's some real value shown in this most recent WWDC. Whether they actually release it this time is another question...
Apple fumbled on QC with software this past year, but have they with hardware? I've found their hardware (both computer and physical builds) has been very high quality still.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5233/
reply