They differ in that there hasn't been a solver you could have thrown them at. I guess you could argue their harness + LLM setup is a "solver", but the approach is so different from what we used that word for in the past that I don't think it would be appropriate.
> The law doesn't actually work by allowing any possible interpretation to hold equal weight the way that many programmers think it does
Is that so? Recent rulings in the US specifically gave me the impression that when backed by sufficient legal representation and goodwill on the judging side indeed any possible interpretation will suffice.
I think that's what makes law making complicated - you either err on the side of leaving too much room for interpretation or not enough.
Well actually there is a reasonably objective standard defining software quality criteria on the source code level (ISO 5055). They also define 29 criteria for maintainability: https://www.it-cisq.org/coding-rules/
See, this goes back to the, all software engineers besides me are wrong, because I see this list and do not think it is anywhere close to a sufficient list for good quality software. The thing about all these criteria is that sometimes they are important, sometimes they are not.
This "standard" exists for the sake of code analysis vendors to be able to have some sort of shared taxonomy, but also provide a fig leaf of standardization to their products.
Very true. As with all standards, there will always be people who disagree. We still mostly follow them either because we're forced to or because the effort required to establish another standard doesn't outweigh the benefits.
Personally I've always been a proponent of project specific standards, but after many years of discussions about more or less individual preference I've come to think that maybe settling on something global isn't the worst idea. Not that I think it must be this one in particular, but it's not the worst start either.
Well yeah humanity in the sense of everyone except maybe Uyghurs, Tibetans, Mongols, ... I mean open models are really cool, but I have a hard time believing China is doing it purely for the greater good. The commoditizing your complement story sounds much more plausible.
It does not use -p, but it does try to impersonate Claude when talking to the Anthropic API. Will they detect the difference in usage patterns and ban anyone who exploits them? Who knows.
I've had my private servers running Arch (managed by Ansible) for the last 5 years but have recently been looking into Talos for the same reasons. Setting up a single node k8s using Talos was actually pretty straight forward. In the end I decided against it just because I couldn't justify the continuous load caused by k8s components when my stuff is only sporadically in use... Instead I now have them on NixOS and I really enjoy the declarative approach (although the language annoys me).
