This is a general collection of my last week with the AI and development. All the comments and feedback are welcome. And the question remains, what I'm not seeing it?

In case you hit some technical obstacle, here is an archived version:

https://web.archive.org/web/20260602195828/https://www.404media.co/microsoft-wants-to-make-people-addicted-to-scout-its-new-ai-assistant-internal-documents-reveal/

Key citation (emphasis mine):

Overview and Plan with Project Lobster,” seen by 404 Media has a subheading called “ClawPilot Overall Plan,” which notes “three phases” to its launch plan. The first phase is “Make people addicted.”

“Continue shipping the standalone ClawPilot experience. Pilot the UX, grow the user base, and build the skill and tool ecosystem that makes people depend on it daily. This is already happening organically,” the document says. Omar Shahine, the Microsoft executive leading the project, adds that in its pilot with Microsoft employees, they have seen “Daily Usage with High Retention and intensity of usage (chats, queries, workflows, skills).” The additional phases of the plan involve connecting ClawPilot to other AI tools and eventually adding new features.

As the title says, which programming language would you agree had the best libraries for visualisation (graphs, 3d models, charts, networks, animations, etc)?

Prefer languages with libraries that have more visulatizaton features than say, ease of using the libraries.

Seems like he's been pushed into using LLMs as a way to cope with the deluge of LLM-generated security reports.

I’m contending (and/or hoping) that for a software package of arbitrary complexity, there’s a zone of viability in which when priced within reason, it’ll make sense to buy over build, even given the existence of the powerful LLMs that’ve become our daily companions:

About 10 years ago, I realized all the best programmers I had worked with had something in common: they were fast. By that I mean that they moved quickly: we’d discuss a problem and an hour or two later they’d already have a patch ready or a prototype to show off.

It took me a while, but eventually I realized: they weren’t fast because they were great programmers, they were great programmers because they were fast.

Zen is simply a fork of Zed for those who are happy to use an IDE free from AI, telemetry, and other cloud-based services. I use it as my daily driver and intend to maintain it so that I can also use it as the base for some non-developer tooling I want to create.

Only tested on Linux for now, though Zed's support for other platforms should be (mostly?) intact.

Hey guys, I’d like your input on this.

I’ve just received this email for a collaboration proposal, which I don’t think looks sketchy at all.

For a bit more of context, I’m a CS college student about to graduate, and I decided to build a portfolio with academic projects and a small CV which I hosted in GitHub pages.

I’d normally not answer because they send me emails to my non visible email, but this one is on my public email (and wasn’t flagged as spam, could be that both are gmail?).

I googled their email and found what a think it’s their GitHub profile, name and location check out, however they don’t have any repository nor commits.

What should I do? Is this an scam?

Edit: I asked for clarification at the risk of being targeted for spam, and I received a reply within 5 minutes. It’s basically a job to do interviews and meetings. There are a few things that I didn’t find clear, like, who will I be representing during meeting/interviews among other things.

Anyways, I’ll probably decline since it’ll too much for me as a first part time job.

Thank y’all who replied

• Rust will save Linux from C's inherent security weaknesses.
• Linux, faced with a flood of AI-discovered security problems, could use the help.
• Going forward, more and more Linux code will be written in Rust.

I'm interested in finding out what people think when they see something GNU. What do you associate with it? Do you tend to be more or less interested in the project if.it is GNU or not? What is your perspective?

I use speckit, and while I like the spec/clarify/plan/task/analyze/implement loop (although it can get a bit overwhelming at times), I don't like that I have to start with writing a spec and implement it to begin with. I am looking for a more of a design phase before the spec phase, where I can talk about the overall application architecture, and then start writing specs for implementing pieces of it.

For instance, let's say I want to build a github repo provisioner that 1. creates repos with desired setup, and 2. bulk edit repos with secret updates, yaml updates, etc. I don't want to build both the features at the beginning. I want to first build only the create portion, and then do the bulk edit feature later on. With speckit, I can do this by only telling it to create the spec for the build portion, but later if I want to build the bulk edit portion, the whole application might need to be changed in important places, because it wasn't a 'planned' feature when it was first designed. I want instead to have a design phase where I describe and maintain a doc with the whole application, and when I start the spec for the create portion, the agent can understand that this create portion is only part of a bigger application and can design/implement the create portion accordingly.

Have you come across a situation like this? how do you handle your big applications? Please advise.

Someone I know asked me for a favour. They made an agreement with a software firm for some custom software for basically inventory on a web interface, generic DB+webserver. They need me to do updates to it as a favour.

It's handoff time. The guys are giving him some trouble. I let them know if I need to do maintainence and whatnot, I need the source code. The guys are saying no. I recommended we use a licence that basically says "Buyer can modify the software and source code, but not distrobute it. Creator can distrobute the software and whatever they want".

I've looked around, and I saw recommendations for :

• source code escrow
• internal-use license
• Modified Source Code License
• custom Restricted Source Code License
• internal modification only licence

anyone have recommendations of specific licences?

I scanned the public repos of 128 YC-backed dev tools companies, 6,195 repos in total. I expected the companies building our tooling to enforce the basics on themselves. Only 2 of the 128 require any status check to pass before merging.

Internet learned to speak gibberish that doesn’t always coincide with literary text. But it can be converted back to that. Here’s my experiment along these lines.