Some of the calculus for that picking will change, since volume of code that must be produced becomes less of an issue. And I don't doubt that models next year and year after will be able to make better formative architectural choices. But as it is now, I'm certain that actual systems handling real workloads require a human designer.

Someone who knows what good software looks like is empowered with agents. Someone without that knowledge isn't going to create a high quality system yet.

So don't run for office or anything like that. Someone, somewhere will have a contact that will get that.

Remote: Preferred over relocation, but happy to travel to office and clients

Willing to relocate: Yes, if it makes sense. USA preferred. US/EU citizen.

Technologies: ios and Android apps (Expo, Swift, Kotlin/Jetpack Compose); web applications (many: Next.js, Django, Rails, Laravel...); POSIX; sockets; .NET; LLMs (langchain, pytorch); agentic development

Résumé/CV: https://gist.github.com/ibejoeb/902026c035a995d5719204511092...

Email: joe@bokengroup.com

Also, All the AI integration into the product is gated by a single setting.

Developing internally initially, as opposed to making it open source, was probably the only practical way for a small team with a specific goal to get there. I don't see any problem turning it over to community development for secondary platforms. If it gets adoption, great. If it fizzles out on linux and windows, nothing is lost.

FAA calls all of these devices, in general, child restraint systems. Rigid seats with harnesses are allowed under FAA rules. The real consideration is blocked egress, since a large, rigid device strapped to a seat could actually make egress more challenging. That is covered in a more subjective advisory circular, which allows airlines to make policy, e.g., it may only be used at a window seat of a non-exit row.

Since FAA just this month has decided to start enforcing a 1992 rule requiring even so much as a paper cup to be stowed before pushback citing the egress concern, we might even expect some new policy on this.

Illegal immigrant voted: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/colombian-national-plea...

6,600 noncitizens registered, 400 noncitizens voted, undisclosed how many, if any, are unlawfully in country: https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/elections/2026/6600-nonci...

1. What are we actually talking about, slowing development or slowing public release? I can't imagine the the US is keen to slow actual development when we have adversarial state-backed labs continuing development. Seems to me that this is a global pact or it's nothing. Stopping a single lab, even if it's the current leader, won't put the genie back in the bottle.

2. Unless they stop actual advancement, isn't the risk essentially identical? At this point, it's an arms race between the lab and its own model. I don't think it far fetched to think that it might successfully exfiltrate its weights, for example.

3. There are going to be factions who don't want to stop. Should we worry about them defecting to other labs or other countries?

This pairing, considering past incidents with similar airframe vs. total hours disparity, really does look to be bad practice. You've got to acknowledge the human psychology. Part of it is probably the crazy pipeline over the past few years where people are racing to 1500 hours no matter how they log them, or they're getting on restricted certs with lower hours.

I like the comparison to Chrome and Chromium. I don't know the timeline of the whole wordpress IP. At this most it has arguably undergone genericization. That's why I think it's complicated enough that there is merit to arguments on either side.