However, I've been skeptical of using Bun, because I want a project whose first and foremost goal is to build good tools that achieve the objectives of the project.

It reminds me of asking game developers: Do you want to build a game, or do you want to build a game engine? Building a game engine is fine, but if you're goal is to make a game, then building an engine is a poor way of achieving your goals.

Likewise, I've wondered if the creators of Bun wanted to build better JavaScript tools, or if they wanted to use Zig.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35970044

I'm willing to grant that there is some value in choosing what to put in the cards, but most of the awkwardness around making cards is UI related. Nobody creates cards on their phone, or while they're walking (AI could do both of these) - people create cards sitting at their computer (like cavemen!) usually clicking through a clunky UI and managing thousands of cards with thousands of clicks. That sucks, and people probably wont realize it sucks until something better comes along.

Spaced repetition is very effective, but it's really really clunky to use. My unpopular opinion is that we all have Stockholm syndrome when it comes to creating "cards", and people talk about how valuable creating cards is; but I think it stucks, it takes a lot of time.

If AI is already teaching me math (let's say), it would be nice to tell the AI/app "quiz me on this periodically", and then the AI makes up a fresh polynomial to factor (or whatever) and presents that to you according to a spaced repetition algorithm.

Behind the scenes, the AI should have access to what has happened the last several times a specific topic has been quized, so the AI can watch to see that certain mistakes are resolved, and the AI might also know better how to correct the user if it has context about previous quizzes of that topic.

The you being taxpayers, right?

There's a dangerous path where the companies are required to describe these transactions as "rentals", but that wont actually solve anything. If we require clearer advertising, we're going to end up with a world where everything is very clearly a rental, and there simply is no option to purchase. People will still buy the $40 "rentals" because it's their favorite movie and they want to watch it multiple times, and it's Friday night and they want to watch it right now.

I think people understand the situation when they "purchase" digital media. They know it might not last forever. They do it anyway. They don't like it though. They would prefer genuine ownership, but it's not an option.

We either need to outlaw these long term rentals, or break up monopolies until companies that are actually offering genuine purchases arise. Or we could do both.

We need to regulate more than just the wording on the "purchase" page. This isn't just a problem of wording.

People don't like that though. We should change the laws so that is illegal. We can just make laws we want--we're allowed to do that.

Politicians are taking about it. Anyone who purchases media cares about it. Support for copyright reform is only going to grow, so hopefully we'll see some.

The only time I've ever seen that name before is when trying to solve driver issues, on both Linux and Windows.

Are they especially stingy with their IP related to drivers or something?

In this case, either (1) the peon was lying about reported hours, the boss didn't notice, and then the peon reported himself... or (2) everything happened just like you said.

Aren't there bounties for reporting things like this? At the very least winning should include reimbursement for legal expenses.

And if we go back further: If Abraham existed, then like 99.9% of all living humans are descendants of Abraham. Do they all have claim to Israel's land then?

It doesn't make sense to look back that far.

This is unlike customer facing systems where, if your database server goes down, you probably can't just use the other one--the whole system is down.

Using local hardware is expensive when it's running a complicated software stack that can break in 10,000 different ways.

These eventual local AI servers will just talk some protocol for AI and sit in the corner and nobody will think about them.

I guess they still might need access to various systems, so idk. Eventually I think someone will offer "AI in a box" though, running the latest open model or whatever.

If you can make Jira an order of magnitude easier to use for yourself than for the people pushing it, suddenly the script flips and Jira is something you push to protect yourself. I've used Jira to almost a malicious extent at times, and it's a great tool to cover your ass. If you ever get in trouble for something you just point out "this was all made clear in the hundreds of Jira updates I've written, you've been reading those, right?". What are they going to do? Ask you to use Jira less?

We have AI now. Hook it all together with a custom script and have the AI do all the Jira crap for you.