I can see the rationale but I can't help thinking it's utterly absurd.

LLM code generation: "Here is an intent/specification. Invent code that hopefully satisfies it."

Does the compiler analogy provide value under those terms? I don't think it does. In fact, I think it provides negative value.

We don't need to use tortured analogies to express excitement over these tools.

> SprintiQ started as an AI planning tool for agile teams. Now we run our entire engineering org on AI agents managed by Turbo. Two founders. Zero human devs. Shipping product.

Good luck.

The driving purpose of Tailwind is to provide a massive suite of utility classes to atop a consistent set of design tokens and yet the vast majority of projects using it will be plucking patterns wholesale from TailwindCSS Plus, Flowbite, etc.

Even Bootstrap was designed for customisation but still, a large number of teams who deployed it would stick largely with the defaults. It's just how it goes, and it's a perfectly valid complaint from observers.

I have absolutely nothing against Tailwind and shadcn/ui so don't take this as a criticism. This is aimed squarely at the people who point out that these tools are designed for customisation without acknowledging nearly every deployed example pulls from the same limited pool of defaults, UI components and larger templates. And why wouldn't they, tailored design systems take incredible effort and skill to get right.

Indeed, it would likely be classed as a violation according to your own ToS.

It's a delicate matter as we all deploy personal automations that break ToS without us really giving it a second thought. But as a commercial endeavour, it feels brazen, I'm sorry to say.

If a web property has implemented anti-bot mechanisms, what ethical reasons do you have for providing evasion as a service?

A more natural unit for pricing would be per domain, application, environment, or similar.

That said, I'm aware several UI frameworks have moved toward seat-based licensing recently, so it must be working for them in some sense.

Did you take exception to the company prior to this controversy? After all, they use manufacturing plants in a country which blends far right and far left political ideas concepts quite openly.

I'm referring to the far left activists who have developed a habit of coercing individuals, organizations and communities, sometimes with threats of physical escalation, for perceived connections to other political fringes.

I'm referring to those using language along the lines of "they have hitler particles in them".

I'm referring to tech journalists who do nothing except whine about left wing politics, however benign.

It's mind melting.

---

Edit: To add colour to the final reference, the same journalist who attacked Framework for issuing Pride stickers is now coming to their defence. It's predictable, it's unproductive, and it should be filtered by anyone who values their time.

The international outlets have done far better at communicating this story.

The editorialized focus on British parts being found is being highlighted over other countries for some peculiar reason. For fun, have a read though the numerous printings of this story, each vying for the most evocative sub-headline.

My winner is Nancy Fielder's effort at https://www.nationalworld.com/news/british-parts-found-in-ru...

> British firms are making money supplying weapon parts for Russian drones which are killing children in Ukraine.

No mention of the aforementioned other allies whose unspecified components were found.