Either way, this is a tremendous achievement and it's extremely relevant in the OpenClaw world where I might not want to have sensitive information leave my computer.

Nvidia GPUs, particularly H100s, have a failure rate orders of magnitudes higher than traditional CPU-only hardware. I myself have accidentally melted an H100 during a large-scale training run.

While it’s trivial to replace a broken GPU in the ground, it seems to be infeasible in space during the life of the satellite. Getting a human or robot “fixer” spacecraft to it would likely cost more than the $30K GPU itself.

However, I disagree that independence is a competitive advantage. If it’s true that having a “firewall” between the coding agent and review agent leads to better code, I don’t see why a company like Cursor can’t create full independence between their coding and review products but still bundle them together for distribution.

Furthermore, there might well be benefits to not being fully independent. Imagine if an external auditor was brought in to review every decision made inside your company. There would likely be many things they simply don’t understand. Many decisions in code might seem irrational to an external standalone entity but make sense in the broader context of the organization’s goals. In this sense, I’m concerned that fully independent code review might miss the forest for the trees relative to a bundled product.

Again, I’m rooting for you guys. But I think this is food for thought.

For example, here's an example for a "day trip plan in Bristol" that contains a canonical example (directly based on the query), but also a customization widget that presents some options that you might not have already thought about if you were just doing a text-based followup.

https://www.phind.com/search/make-me-a-day-plan-ac8c583b-ce6...