I find that Codex generally requires me to remove code to get to what I want, whereas Claude I tend to use what it gives me and I add to it. Whether this is from additional prompting or from manual typing, i just find that codex requires removal to get to desired state, and Claude requires adding to get to desired state. I prefer adding incrementally than removing.

ClaudeCode is used by me almost daily, and it continues to blow me away. I don't use Codex often because every time I have used it, the output is next to worthless and generally invalid. Even if it does get me what I eventually want, it will take much more prompting for me to get the functioning result. ClaudeCode on the other hand gets me good code from the initial prompt. I'm continually surprised at exactly how little prompting it requires. I have given it challenges with very vague prompts where it really exceeds my expectations.

The anthropic (ClaudeCode) tooling is best-in-class to me. You listed many features that I have become so reliant on now, that I consider them the Ante that other competitors need to even be considered.

I have been very impressed with the Anthropic agent for code generation and review. I have found the OpenAI agent to be significantly lacking by comparison. But to be fair, the last time I used OpenAI's agent for code was about a month ago, so maybe it has improved recently (not at all unreasonable in this space). But at least a month ago when using them side-by-side the codex CLI was VERY basic compared to the wealth of features and UI in the ClaudeCode CLI. The agents for Claude were also so much better than OpenAI, that it wasn't even close. OpenAI has always delivered me improper code (non-working or invalid) at a very high rate, whereas Claude is generally valid code, the debate is just whether it is the desired way to build something.

However, at the same time, I was using Claude much less, really preferring the answers from it most of the time, and constantly being hit with limits. So guess what I did. I cancelled my OpenAI subscription and moved to Anthropic. Not only do i get Claude Code, which OpenAI really has no serious competitor for.

I still use both models but never run into problems with OpenAI, so i see no reason to pay for it.

Now, when he said that, his CFO corrected him and said they aren't profitable, but said "it's close".

Take that with a grain of salt, but thats a conversation from one of the big AI companies that is only a few weeks old. I suspect that it is pretty accurate that pricing is currently reasonable if you ignore training. But training is very expensive and the reason most AI companies are losing money right now.

I expect a lot more paywalls for valuable content. General information is commoditized and offered in aggregated form through models. But when an AI is fetching information for you from a website, the publisher is still paying the cost of producing that content and hosting that content. The AI models are increasing the cost of hosting the content and then they are also removing the value of producing the content since you are just essentially offering value to the AI model. The user never sees your site.

I know Ads are unpopular here, but the truth is that is how publishers were compensated for your attention. When an AI model views the information that a publisher produces, then modifies it from its published form, and removes all ad content. Then you now have increased costs for producers, reduced compensation in producing content (since they are not getting ad traffic), and the content isn't even delivered in the original form.

The end result is that publishers now have to paywall their content.

Maybe an interesting middle-ground is if the AI Model companies compensated for content that they access similar to how Spotify compensates for plays of music. So if an AI model uses information from your site, they pay that publisher a fraction of a cent. People pay the AI models, and the AI models distribute that to the producers of content that feed and add value to the models.

He is able to talk, you can make out his words, but he is clearly choking or being strangled. He was fully sucked into the machine. There was a very strong guy trying with everything to pull him out. He made some pretty sad and harrowing words when he realized he wasn't going to make it. Again, the video is out there if you really want to see it. I do NOT recommend it though.

The "bailout" for consumers is that they lower interest to 0%. That's what we did in 2007. If people can refinance their homes from 7% to ~2% then they save a fortune and it spurs buyers back into the market and current homeowners to move around and shuffle inventory.

Of course the Parent comment is also correct because banks get bailed out by low interest rates, but the government also bailed out several banks directly. Corporate bailouts are always a debatable topic. In one way we should let bad businesses fail, they failed because of the risks and choices they made and bailing them out is just inviting those mistakes to happen again. But on the flip side, consumers do need banks (as much as we refuse or hate to admit it). Yes banks make money off of us, but we as consumers also need banks. Which is why bailouts get approved.

We have seen this movie before. I'm not sure why everyone is debating the ending. We watched and lived the ending. It wasn't pretty in the middle there, but the market eventually recovered. Here we are getting ready to rewind and watch the movie again.

So often what you do is when unit testing, you need to test CRUD-type operations between the application and the database. So you generally have to spin up a temporary database just to delete it at the end of the tests. Commonly this is done with SQLite during testing, even if you built the application for postgres in production. Because it is fast and easy and you can interact with it as a file, not requiring connection configurations and added bloat.

But then sometimes your app gets complicated enough that you are using Postgres features that SQLite doesn't have comparables to. So now you need a PG instance just for testing, which is a headache.

So this project bridges the gap. Giving you the feature completedness and consistency across envs of using postgres, but with the conveniences of using SQLite.

> "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft Office".

Basically if you are the head of IT and you use Microsoft Office, the CEO comes to you and complains it is slow, you can say "Well Microsoft makes it slow". The CEO will shrug and move on. But if you instead get rid of microsoft and move the org to Google WOrkspace, then the CEO comes to you and says "Google Sheets doesn't have this one formula that I use" and you tell them that Google doesn't offer it, the CEO fires you for swithcing away from Microsoft Office.

Google Workspace is amazing. But Corporate IT departments just absolutely love paying their Microsoft enterprise subscriptions. So I have to use it for that reason.

Like you said, the office UI is horrible. I can't ever find anything. But in Google Docs, Slides, and Sheets, everything is exactly where I want it. I truly haven't ran into cases where Office products have something significant that Google's workspaces can't. I know there are differences, with office having some more advanced features but I think 99.5% of people don't ever use these advanced features.

Granted, the corporate malware on my computer doesn't help the situation. I can literally build AI Models from scratch on my computer. But if I boot up a Microsoft Office product I have a 33% chance that it crashes.

How can I build an AI model with no issue, find and replace instantly in an IDE for a projects that is tens of gigabytes and thousands of files with no issue. But I want to write a sentance onto a blank page in Microsoft Word, or Reply "thanks" to an email in Microsoft Outlook and the application crashes or takes 3 minutes to load?

I truly do not understand how Microsoft Office is still the dominant enterprise platform. These applications have horrible UIs, they are bloated, slow, and expensive. Yet every IT department foams at the mouth and gets a hard-on to sign their Microsoft 365 contract for $200 per user.

I still love IntelliJ, its a great product. But it is slow, bloats the computer, needs constant updating. But at least its incredibly powerful as a tradeoff to the bloat.

The Office debate is slightly different. It is slow, bloats the computer, needs constant updating. But unlike IntelliJ i dont feel that there is any advantage to all that added weight. We are using a word processor. We type words onto a blank screen. Why is Word and Outlook the most common applications to crash my computer that has an M1 Max Chip with 48Gb of Memory? I can literally run and build AI models on my computer with no problem but you boot up Microsoft Word to type words onto a blank page and you have a 33% chance of crashing the computer.

Google Sheets and Docs are actually better tools in my opinion for most people. 99% or more of the features you need are available in the google equivalents. These products are fast and run in a browser! The UI is actually VASTLY superior to Microsoft's ribbon. I still can't find stuff that I need on a routine basis and have to google it. I don't have this problem when using Google's office equivalents.

Without Spring, you would have every team rebuilding the database layer in 100 different ways. With 100 shoddy attempts at documentation.

So for better or worse, having one framework-standard way to interact with the database, modify headers, or do any number of standard tasks makes life easier even if it enshrouds the underlying system in abstraction and layering.

Tbh, its not a whole lot different than where PHP is going where php is becoming synonymous with Laravel. Wordpress is probably one of the last few bastions keeping that framework from fully owning the language.

Install Alfred or Raycast and Command+Space your way to everything. Its 100x faster. I can launch any app in about 3 key strokes, which takes < 2 seconds and often less than a second with muscle memory.

For example cmd+space+c will launch or switch to chrome. cmd+space+py is pycharm, cmd+space+go is goland, cmd+space+fi is finder, cmd+space+me is messages, cmd+space+1 is 1Password. cmd+space+1p+space will start searching 1Password.

That launches apps. You can also just start doing math problems (calculator) by just cmd+space and start typing out a math equation. cmd+space+ai+space and just start asking a question to AI.

These only scratch the surface. But cmd+space, which is an easy modifier combo that you can do anytime, will basically unlock unlimited power. Once you get the muscle memory down you can literally launch any app in less than a second without even looking. If the app is already open, it just brings that app to foreground. Once you have that, you can use alt+tab to switch between apps that are already open. This is useful if you are just swapping between two or three apps for reference quickly. Furthermore alt+tilde (the squiggle key above tab and below escape on most latin keyboards) will switch between open windows of the same type. FOr example if you have 2 chrome windows open, it will switch only between those windows.

Yet audits of individuals making < $25k per year is over 5.5 times higher than those in all other income brackets (1.27% vs 0.25%). So we chase down citizens when likely they probably don't even had a tax burden anyway. Maybe they misfiled some taxes and should be taxed a few hundred or even a thousand dollars more. But the manpower to chase down these little checks is a net negative on the department.

Sure, it is possible you find fraud in some of these low income cases. Someone claims to only make $25k but really they run a cash business and make $80k. But these are likely so limited thanks to other validations the IRS has access to, that the number of cases that reveal this is extremely tiny. So back to another argument on here, there an expectations that fraud is non-zero, and we accept that because getting fraud to zero is not worth the cost.

Hell, the guy is able to re-run and win the elected office again after being impeached a few times during his previous administration. Congress needs to affirm his impeachment to force him out of office and that requires a supermajority, which will never happen. Trump could kill someone on national TV and he would maybe get impeached, but he'd have enough friends in congress defending his actions that he would still be president. I mean he's already a convicted criminal.

That's why he just doesn't care anymore and is going crazy as if no laws exist. Laws mean nothing to him. At worst they are an annoyance or noise to him, but he already proved that nothing can stop him.

This perspective is coming from someone who largely agrees with their ultimate conclusion that we should have Voter ID laws, but there were legitimate counter-points that got missed which should be addressed before implementing voter-id laws.

In a recent episode they went off for quite a while about selling off UHF and VHF frequencies which was also a pretty clueless claim. Sacks thinks they should auction them more frequently and allow startups to buy them for new technologies. I sort of get what he is saying, but how does that change anything? You are just trading one problem for another. You have all the same ownership problems we currently have but you are using it for something with arguably less public good, which is used strictly for profit. How would selling off the frequencies to Microsoft, Apple, and Google (since let's be honest they would have the most money to buy into these experimental land grabs, not some small startup) be any different than ABC, NBC, and CBS owning the airwaves? Yet somehow the group just kind of followed along with this groupthink concept like tech bros.

I do think that they have a bit of a responsibility to fact check and do some due diligence on these types of topics, because as OP's article points out, there are a huge majority of their listeners who will blindly trust anything this panel says as gospel and truth. Many people idolize them since they have made a lot of money and are successful businessmen that they don't make mistakes. Granted that is a larger debate on how society is too trusting of their heroes or leaders, but it is still the current situation nonetheless.

I used to listen to the podcast diligently. I now listen to between 1/3 - 1/2 of the episodes. Basically if I have extra time or the topics are of particular interest to me. But I will no longer make time for the podcast like I used to, I only use it to fill time I might otherwise have if I am caught up on other podcasts.

IMO Chamath and Jason are probably the best of the group. With Chamath being the most informed. I have to give Jason credit because he seems to be the one most willing to bring up counter-arguments. Without Jason this podcast would just devolve into utter nonsense. Sacks' rants about conspiracy theories used to be entertaining, and I love to hear opposing opinions on things to better expand my awareness, but they are so constant and extreme now, that they are just annoying at this point. Friedberg is mostly a background character IMO which is a shame since he tends to be the most centralist and evidence-based of the group. But as is normal in this world, those level-headed opinions get drowned out by the loud people shouting conspiracies and anger fueled rants.

The group clearly has potential as we have seen them hitting the potential. But they are pretty confident with their position as the number one podcast in the world (no idea if that is true or not, but that's their claim) and they seem to be flying pretty close to the sun as a result. It might be going to their heads.

If they see this I would recommend they hire a research team to fact check them throughout the episode or to inject opposing opinions on things. They can afford it and if they are the top podcast in the world than one could argue that they have an ethical obligation to do so. Also limit Sacks' talking. Sometimes I feel like he talks for 1/2 the episode and that's usually when the podcast goes off the rails.

Best of luck to them either way. I don't really care. There is a lot of great content out there that I can listen to besides them (and I have already started shifting towards). But I enjoyed them enough at their peak that if they can bring it back I'd be happy too.