That's more than 3x the actual recommended dose for an average adult based on the research others have shared in this thread. So no, they're not starting from a sensible starting point.

edit/update: and the Samsung acquisition was in 2016. So I'd hope the CTO would have _some_ involvement in that decision.

And to call it out in a thread where someone has literally shared that they're forced to attend a pointless appointment at an exorbitant cost like that isn't itself some form of wasteful bureaucracy. But if the time and money is going to a corporation instead of the government it's better :/

Congrats to the entire Cursor team! I don't know all of their stories, but I do like to smile and celebrate a little when I see people who are often hidden in the shadows quietly making things x% better for all of millions of us every day for many years getting reward for that effort.

I do suspect it was built with some form of AI though because the handful of links I've tried to dig into have all linked to the wrong place/are invalid :/

Which is also how we've gone about working out how to improve the CLI. It's usually one or more of:

* rethinking the subcommands and hierarchy to something more obvious and aligned to the task

* providing clear documentation upfront (i.e, in the skills file)

* keeping help text concise, but not too concise. You can't assume the reader is already a power user and it's simply looking for a reminder/reference. So include usage examples for common use cases

* where possible on errors, suggest the likely commands the person meant.

* In general offer affordances on what likely next steps will be. This goes for help output, success, and errors.

> cli help text is usually massive

That doesn't have to be true.

> could eat a lot of the savings on retries

This doesn't have to be true either. You don't need to give the same full help output on every single error, once they've got it once they've got it. Also the size of the entire help output for most CLIs is generally insignificant compared to even just a couple of source files in most repos.

I don't know if we'll keep dissecting every incremental improvement we make as (so far) the general approach is the same as documented in the existing blog post: document common use cases -> benchmark them -> identify bottlenecks/expensive hot spots -> fix them -> repeat

The main thing changing right now is observing new more frequent use cases (either because we're adding new capabilities, or users are doing things we didn't entirely predict) and adding them to the test cases.

What can definitely happen though is you get one that is inappropriate in a given context. An example here might be a recommendation from an m5.2xlarge to an m6g.2xlarge instance. Same vCPUs and memory, lower cost, but... also a switch from Intel -> ARM architectures. For a lot of companies their build pipelines make it easy enough to make that change. For others there may be some specific dependency on Intel for that workload which means changing the architecture isn't viable. In that case you can simply dismiss the recommendation and we'll stop suggesting it.

We've found even more improvements since that post so those will be shipping soon too.

"the kind of movies that I loved and the kind of movies that were my bread and butter (are no longer affordable if I was to do a cinema release)"

So maybe Behind the Candelabra was direct to HBO precisely because of the economics he was pointing out?

I'd posit the main difference between the two was Terraform's declarative approach provided more consistency and predictability in how infrastructure was defined and provisioned. The constraints it imposed were the benefit vs a sprawling estate with a hundred different bespoke ways to provision a given service in your preferred language.

This is absolutely not a car that screams "Ferrari" though.