But the core difference for me is I can easily see the code changing in cursor, but not in Claude code. Bigger tasks, I’ll have to drop into other tools to see what Claude is doing along the way. I don’t like that. I like everything being in the same spot

Anyways, I use cursor for a number of reasons:

1. I still want very quick access to the code in the editor. So I want the IDE.

2. Generally solid defaults. Auto-compaction, plan mode, etc, all work pretty well.

3. When I switched back to it from Claude code, it was genuinely faster at running Opus than Claude code. Claude code was grinding to a fucking halt every two minutes.

4. So annoying to search and view your chat history in Claude code. I’m a visual person. I also want all my repos loaded into a big workspace. Cursor also does that great out of the box.

5. I don’t have time to redo my terminal setup again to optimize it for Claude.

Tbh, I’m not aware of much that Claude code does that you can’t also do in cursor. At the end of the day, the agent loop and tools are not that different, and the model is identical.

The tool you use to prompt it is not the hard part. I just work faster when I have everything easily accessible in one spot, which was easier for me to accomplish with cursor than Claude. I found it just got out of my way.

This is a non issue, IMO. Does it depend on the electronics being designed correctly? Sure, but that’s the case for all electronics, and most devices probably build on some widely-available standardized control boards from 3rd parties.

As a user, I’m sooo happy that I can bring a portable battery and a wall charger, and both can recharge every single one of my portable devices. From gaming handhelds to large, powerful laptops, to wireless earbuds, to cameras, to smart watches, to flashlights. All with very different power requirements.

AUR is worse, in that there may not be official authors and you can take over releases of a package. Like, you’ll have random users publishing the release for some application that doesn’t have their own Arch release. And if that user disappears, someone else may take it over

I’m not sure how to find a balance. One reason to use Arch is to always have the latest software, especially if you’re gaming. (Need to run very recent kernels, GPU drivers, and DEs to support new graphics cards.) So that’s very different from other stable LTS distros which carefully pick the package updates they incorporate.

Anyways, I do agree package cooldowns and such make a lot of sense. Package managers should be pulling out the stops on all the free controls they can implement. I can understand why anything requiring compute or maintainer time is a non-starter. (Sidebar: I don’t feel the same way about npm. Microsoft can afford to run malware scanners and analysis tools on npm packages.)

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Official_repositories

The “vibe” of a product is absolutely important. Do logstash and datadog have similar vibes in their log viewers? Fuck no. I can instantly tell I’m using something related to that tool because of its design language. That helps it stay sticky. If you’re datadog, you don’t want users thinking the product feels and looks exactly like all the other log viewers. You want them to think it’s unique and the best or whatever. Marketing sites extend that, and are absolutely a component of the “vibes” you get from a product before doing a strict engineering breakdown.

My thought: demand a certain level of visibility from car manufacturers, and they can figure out how to design around it. Like, I must be able to look left and see the pedestrian 3 feet away from walking into my car. Blind spots like that in the front are ridiculous

It’s wild that they’re like “it’s more secure to not have a password” and then choose two unencrypted delivery mechanisms for the very short OTP.

Sure, people who reuse passwords are not secure. And fair, I guess it’s a tragedy of the commons. But at least continue supporting it and make it dead simple for password managers if you actually care bout security

As far as I can tell, that’s exactly how it works. Reality is investor emotions. If it shouldn’t be that, I mean the whole system needs a rework.

Not familiar with this world, but they could use relatively standard, widely used parts to build the tractor. For example, Yanmar engines are widely used in the marine world. The engine choice is abstracted away from the boat (for certain types of boats) and you don’t rely on the boat manufacturer sticking around. Everything can be retrofitted.