Just don't try to use that adapter on another NACS connector like the Mobile Connector, it'll get stuck and you'll have to do some magnet shenanigans to get it off (ask me how I know...)

NACS on Level 2 has the same number of pins, but speaks a different protocol than J1772, so just a normal "dumb" adapter won't work. You either need a Connector that can speak J1772, or a TeslaTap.

"Specifically modifying" as in "not even touching that part of the code in the fork"...

Publish through homebrew like a civilized person, please!

- Ask Claude to look at my current in-progress task (from Github/Jira/whatever) and repro the bug using the Chrome MCP.

- Ask it to fix it

- Review the code manually, usually it's pretty self-contained and easy to ensure it does what I want

- If I'm feeling cautious, ask it to run "manual" tests on related components (this is a huge time-saver!)

- Ask it to help me prepare the PR: This refers to instructions I put in CLAUDE.md so it gives me a branch name, commit message and PR description based on our internal processes.

- I do the commit operations, PR and stuff myself, often tweaking the messages / description.

- Clear context / start a new conversation for the next bug.

On a personal project where I'm less concerned about code quality, I'll often do the plan->implementation approach. Getting pretty in-depth about your requirements ovbiously leads to a much better plan. For fixing bugs it really helps to tell the model to check its assumptions, because that's often where it gets stuck and create new bugs while fixing others.

All in all, I think it's working for me. I'll tackle 2-3 day refactors in an afternoon. But obviously there's a learning curve and having the technical skills to know what you want will give you much better results.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily make a distinction between the full-time employees vs the part-time ones.

Employees of a company are the ones who are the most affected by the company's decisions, it's only fair that they have a say.

IMO there is a real qualitative difference between AI and crypto in terms of the durable impact it's going to have on the world. Does that mean I've bought into the AI hype? Maybe. But I think the signs are there.

What people are saying is that this mad race to throw cash at anything that has "AI" in it will eventually stop, and what will remain are the useful things.

It's more similar to a boat than a house. If your boat has a leak, you need to repair it very quickly or it ends up at the bottom of the ocean. Yet we've managed to do it relatively reliably.

Mind you, I have relatively good Docker experience (wrote Dockerfiles, have a pretty extensive Docker-Compose - based home server with ~15 services) so I'm not new to containers at all. But man, the documentation for all these tools was worse than useless.

One thing where it hasn't shone is configuring my production deployment. I had set this project up with a docker-compose, but my selected CI/CD (Gitlab) and my selected hosting provider (DigitalOcean) seemed to steer me more towards Kubernetes, which I don't know anything about. Gitlab's documentation wanted me to setup Flux (?) and at some point referred to a Helm chart (?)... All words I've heard but their documentation is useless to newcomers ("manage containers in production!": yes, that's obviously what I'm trying to do... "Getting started: run this obscure command with 5 arguments": wth is this path I need to provide? what's this parameter? etc.) I honestly can't believe how complex the recommended setup is, to ultimately run 2 containers that I already have defined in ~20 lines of docker-compose...

Claude got me through it. Took it about 5-6 hours of trying stuff, build failing, trying again. And even then, it still doesn't deploy when I push. It builds, pushes the new container images, and spins up a new pod... which it then immediately kills because my older one is still running and I only want one pod running... Oh well, I'll just keep killing the old pod until I have some more energy to throw at it to try and fix it.

TL;DR: it's much better at some things than others.

I wouldn't want to have Claude auto-commit everything it does (because I sometimes revert its changes), nor would I want to YOLO it without any git repo... This seems like a nice tool, but for someone who has a very different workflow.

Often times there's a lot of repetition in the app I'm working on, and there's a lot of it that's already been abstracted away, but we still have to import the component, its dependencies, and setup the whole thing which is indeed pretty boring. It really helps to tell the LLM to implement something and point it to an example of the style I want.