The article points out one major issue (bounds) & one minor gripe (outdated cmd).

The bounds issue is very serious & more than worthy of an article in itself. It is a single issue though & hardly constitutes "a mess" when considering the entirety of uv.

I don't think uv's UX is perfect - I could point out plenty more minor gripes other than the outdated one mentioned here - but looking at where we're coming from in the Python package management ecosystem it's a goddamn miracle the UX is as good as it is.

The number of data points shown here is low - there's plenty more it could be checking - & a good number of them seem to be wrong (it's only detecting one as explicitly "withheld" but I believe a few of them actually are, leading to garbled output).

Needs some QA.

Someone has some something cool here & people seem to be annoyed that they have not done something entirely different.

If I got the impression that it was like OSM, that would give me the impression that it is only as global as my contributions to it (which is what lead to OSM becoming global).

The only reason you would assume a site would be global is if your definition of "global" is "works in the US" & you never bother to check for support of other countries. I live in the anglosphere outside of the US & I encounter more than enough US-only web projects for that not be to a default assumption I hold.

Most sites are not global - it's very odd to assume they would be.

Still obviously crazy to consider that any kind of "average" or common size, but certainly not outrageous, especially for someone working in that field.

The lack of package pinning is unfortunate but common enough that I'd simply open a ticket (& expect them to address it) rather than writing off the entire project.

The lack of a security audit for a project this young is also unsurprising & hardly notable.

Lots of assumptions that the article is AI-authored (it could be but I'm not seeing overtly obvious signs - it's quite readable) & a lot of ungrounded assumptions that this is somehow related to Bitwarden integrating AI into their product.

I really thought reading comprehension among HN users was better than this.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47576852

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

1. Provision of optional tools: I may use an ai agent differently to all other devs on a team, but it seems useful for me to have access to the same set of project-specific commands, skills & MCP configs that my colleagues do. I amn't forced to use them but I can choose to on a case by case basis.

2. Guardrails: it seems sensible to define a small subset of things you want to dissuade everyone's agents from doing to your code. This is like the agentic extension of coding standards.

I'm guessing with the way web standards have evolved & become more complex this might actually be impossible to do today while remaining compliant - honestly give me non-compliance though.

Opera 12 was instantaneous in everything it did, even with a session with 100s of tabs open (without auto-unloading them in the background like modern browsers do) & thousands of local emails in M2. The instant history navigation in particular is something no modern browser has even attempted to copy, Vivaldi included (likely because it's a core Chromium functionality that would be difficult to override).

There's just so many tiny details of its UX that were slick & seamless & have been lost. Little things that seem minor but were huge on aggregate like text selection of linkified text - it simply does not work in Gecko or Blink browsers but somehow Presto did it with ease. The page you're leaving remaining fully responsive during navigation to facilitate change-of-mind on mis-clicks, etc. Millions of tiny UX details like this just made the whole daily browsing experience so painless.

I hate to be pedantic but pint being volumetric, you're still getting a pint, independent of density. Also - a nitrogen head doesn't dissipate, so you never get a gap.

I'm now curious though whether a nitrogen head is less dense than a CO2 head...

> not cheating the customer out of volume

I don't think it's cheating if its the norm. One would expect prices to be set appropriately for the average volume served (i.e. a full glass would be a bonus rather than the gap being a loss).

I do just find it odd, coming myself from the opposite culturally.

One thing that always struck me as odd is how the culture is seemingly the opposite of this in apparent beer meccas like Belgium - not only are the glasses typically much smaller (this is fine) but they also leave massive gaps at the top. The glass capacity is never treated as being close to the rim at all.