Particularly for reusable liquid engines :)

I use both ChatGPT and Claude for engineering work on a daily basis, touching performance critical code to application backends to frontend work, and I've found that DeepSWE scores don't reflect my reality when I assess high quality output from the models/harnesses.

Not that Opus always beats GPT 5.5., but that 5.5 is ahead of Opus on a general benchmark smells off to me.

FSL (vs a copyleft license or just plain old OSS) implies they want to turn this into a revenue source for themselves ultimately, unfortunately.

>Maybe I should put one of those buy me a coffee links on the repo

Absolutely :) Cool project.

Not sure why it's such an issue to discuss the political views of the beneficiaries of services we use. I understand it's mostly uninteresting as far as comment sections go, but it's always bizarre to see a defense of political association when often the impetus for sharing this type of information is for people/consumers to exercise their right to associate with business based on their political outlook.

I have no idea why you're making a comparison to a TV show; nothing that was described was anything akin to that. I just made examples out of insufferable and clueless forum comments, that very clearly detract from discussion more than they contribute to it.

I don't think you should assume that describing meaningless and unrelated anecdotes as "uninteresting" is equivalent to users calling for a forum ban, which is seemingly what you're doing when you point to forum rules when encountering a critique.

"I'm insured!"

"Open-source software projects are being spammed with LLM generated PRs. Contributions are becoming more restricted".

"I have a repo that isn't being spammed!"

Sometimes sharing a somewhat related experience is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and also completely uninteresting. It does not matter that somehow their "experience is valid".

You can have the blockchain team be an expert in converting integer cents, or the forex team be an expert in sub-cent conversions. You don't want to require _every team_ to have expertise in float math, by default.

False positives and poorly defined tasks/acceptance criteria have let some models have insanely inflated scores on bad benchmarks.

And sure, you can say they're not disclosed to prevent gaming, but if you're the only one who can review them then the might as well be a random number generator display with an unreadable UI.