I can find some pretty cool linux laptops from framework or tuxedo, but they have fans and they get hot.

Obviously it's not like having Claude Code or similar, but those would be very hard to run legally and safely in EU regulated industries like us in energy production. You could run Codex but it would require your IT department to have yet another place to manage security and software integrations. Which is a fairly big issue when you have around 1 IT staff member per 300 employees, and an organisation which will buy five different sharepoint solutions for the same problem.

Microsoft sells something that seamlessly integrates into everything else you buy from them. It's easy to manage credit spending and when I say that I don't mean that it's easy to set it up. It's easy to track and budget so the right departments pay for it. It can read your emails, your onedrive, your loop, your sharepoint, your powerbi/fabric and anything else you have access to. Sure it's annoying to be confronted with a point you've made 7 months ago (like how you think Copilot is utter trash) and since changed opinions on it's frightingly good at finding relevant stuff, even in some obscoure legal document on your intranet.

I assume that Anthropic and OpenAI makes money of this somehow, but for the most parts our users wouldn't care if it was the GPT and Claude models or Mistral or Deepseek. Which is why I asked if they had really gotten it right.

On the flip-side I always found javascript frameworks to have a purpose. Though to be fair I don't think I've worked with user facing javascript without a framework since jquery came about. I guess you could call that a library, but still.

I do think the capabilities of AI depends a lot on how you work. If you're doing very low abstraction, fail fast defensive programming in something like Rust then it's fairly good at writing code with high quality. If you're working in some OOP language with tons of freedom, then my experience is that it's usually not better (or worse) than most human programmers, but certainly much worse than some.

I've got decades of experience in enterprise development and I've also been an external examiner for CS students. We have people with no coding back ground vibe coding internal tools in Python which are terrible, but not really worse than what we've previously bought from some of the cheaper coding houses around here. At the same time we have AI writing internal SDK's and libraries in Rust which will frankly write better code than I do on a thursday afternoon after too many meetings and too little sleep because the children kept me awake all week.

Good code can mean a lot of things though. If you're deep into clean SOLID DRY OOP programming I suspect that an AI will produce unreadable horrible code, much worse than most humans. On the flip-side the AI probably knows the difference between a generator and looping over a List. It probably also knows more about JVM optimization than most of those banking programmers trying to replace COBOL with JAVA.'

I doubt Antropic is a good sample though. Bun is written in Rust and it's a single purpose software, which seem to be an optimal environment for LLM's.

SPA's and their frameworks still have their use cases. I don't think you can really get full "simplicity" when you have a lot of people working on the same code that goes into enterprise production. I do think that a lot of the more complicated stacks mainly exist because "that's how we've always done it". Which is frankly also a fair consideration if you're not in a position where changing it would generate a lot of value.

I find that it always comes down to people. The fewer people you are, the easier it is to make rapid changes. With a lot of people, and maybe people with very different backgrounds and skill-sets things changes. Change management isn't easy, and often the actual tech stack will matter a lot less than building a good team around it. You obviously still want to work toward changes and approvements, but switching a 100 people from their safe and overly complicated tech stack to something else will take a while. You'll also have to be damn sure it's worth it.

I've even been rebellious enough to swap the left ctrl to a command button.

I don't know, the vast majority of daily Microsoft Defender offenders I have to wade through, as well as the majority of the intune remidy requests are related to Node being used in various Microsoft applications. The Azure CLI is one of them, but the one which really ranks high on the security risk levels is always something "Agent" or "AI" related folder which I assume are what runs the Copilot and Cowork clients.

I think I had around 800 CVE warnings in relations to Axios in side a Microsoft tool related to AI running node this week, from just 8 devices.

Bun having it's own batteries included is probably a nice benefit to avoid that.

Which is an issue when you need to get department managers to manage their budgets around the amounts of credits their employees spend. The more of a black box it is, the more governance and corporate bullshit you have to deal with.

The copilot part of it runs "unlimited" on the license. Except it's not unlimited, and this is even more of a blackbox because you can't see any sort of spending and the limit is listed as "extensive use".

Fable changed a lot of things I had explicitly told it not to change. Arguably a lot of them would've been correct if you didn't work in a place where abstractions are directly against the core principles, but what it produced was basically unusable. I'm not sure if Sol or Astra did best, they produced rather similar code outputs. Astra's was better, but Sol didn't do so bad. It forgot to clean up a few places after it's refactor and it made two bugs I had to correct but other than that it was fine. Astra on the flip-side might have produced code that didn't need changes but it also rewrote every piece of documentation so that it became horrible.

As far as the "experiment" goes, it just shows you that the credit consumption is basically pure magic. You'd think that the Microsoft AI admin tools and the Agent365 FOMO DLC license they sell might give you some sort of reporting, but it doesn't. What you can see is how many tokens a user consumes and the total number of tasks they've initiated as well as whatever running agents they have. You can't see what models they use or which tasks are expensive, which makes it very hard to help them. Early on we had an employee who hit their limit in an hour, and it turned out they had basically uploaded a lot of information and run it in a single long task that kept going over it again and again. We told them it might be a good idea to only give it what it needed and to create more tasks, and even though it's been three months, they have yet to consume as many credits as they did that first hour.

But that's how you support and track it. You see a user spend a lot, then you go to their computer and now that you can actually do the /cost thing, you go through their tasks and try and figure out where they're spending money...

It's obviously improving. A month ago /cost wasn't there and they just released a new dashboard for cowork, but it's still black magic that is impossible to govern.

We're working on bringing the last 10% down by giving non-developers various AI skills such as a compliance module that can be pushed to specific Entra groups which will make sure their vibe code madness will stick to external dependencies we've approved. (There are still hard checks later).

For other tasks it's running on guesses, and sometimes you can save help people €1000 a week by teaching them how to use the AI better.

That being said. I don't think anyone in my team considers us a "Bun" team in regards to Typescript, all our internal packages are Node packages as an example.

I don't personally have an opinion on it being owned by Anthropic. It was part of our risk assessment, but it obviously passed.

As far as Randers cyber security goes. I imagine it'd be "fun" to do an right of access to documents, on the amount of unique visits their Microsoft Defender has registered to chatgpt.com and claude.ai.

That being said it's not like us being shit at cyber security doesn't mean other countries aren't also shit. Look at Australia getting hacked by AI. I know it's all the rage to blame OpenAI, but really, shouldn't Australia count itself fortunate it wasn't an enemy nation state? Or that their lacking security got exposed before it was.

Compare this to the ministry of transportation, which has full resources. This is despite the fact that most people in this country spend less time commuting than they do working on a computer. Not that transportation isn't important, but maybe digitalisation is as well?

My personal CPR has been leaked a couple of times though. Hilariously the first time it was leaked when a couple of unencrypted laptops were stolen from the biggest IT union in the country. We have a system in place where you can flag your CPR as having been leaked. Though I suppose now we might as well consider every one of them to be leaked. In theory a CPR on it's own was never meant to give any sort of authority or access, but again, this wasn't the practice in a lot of place. So I guess this leak may be a blessing in disguise in that sense as well, as it'll highten security because of broken trust.

VW EV sales are up in South America, Canada and Europe. It's true that their total global numbers are down, but that's mainly because they lost like 30% in China. Which obviously sucks considering how big the Chinese market is, but then, the Chinese market is it's own sort of thing.

Don't get me wrong, I think your point is valid for a lot of traditional European car brands. Mercedes is certainly one of them which has lost it's "our engines are nicer" brand, but I suspect VW is one of the brands that will do just fine. Especially with the id polo coming out next year.