> However, as I understand it, you instead tracked down the Etsy store of someone who had criticized and blocked you on social media, specifically to send them further unwanted messages related to your previous conversation about "doxxing" another user.

I have zero knowledge of the drama beyond reading the posts here, but if this is true then that clearly falls into the harassment arena.

Re point 5, the simplest argument in favor of sub-agent workflows it that it allows the main agent context to remain free of a large amount of task-specific working context. This lets the main context survive longer before you need compaction. Compaction in CC is a major loss of context IME. Context compaction is generally the point where I reset the conversation as the compacted conversation is practically as bad as a new one but has a bunch of wasted space already.

How I wish we could just see and patch up the raw context before it goes out. If I could hand edit a compaction it would result in better execution going forward and better for my own mental model. It’s such a small feature, but Anthropic would never give it to us.

Back when I used to work freelance, I learned that all my contracts needed to have a provision not releasing IP rights until final payment was made. This provides the legal stick to side-step going through a commercial contract dispute. You frequently run into companies wanting to pay fractions of amounts due and not having a strong incentive to hurry along a resolution. Instead, without IP assignment it becomes a copyright enforcement action instead and that can get attention and resolution much faster. I never ended up needing to use it, but I did have to remind a few customers that the provision existed. This all came out of a client stiffing me on a large bill that was, at the time, extremely damaging to my cash flow.

With the above in mind, publicly changing a customer's website to something like this is *highly* unprofessional. Better to simply force the site down in a legal manner that conforms to a signed contract.

This worked for me once. Client refused to pay. We all met with our lawyers. Client was chuckling. Slid copy of contract over the table with IP rights highlighted. Client: "We need a minute." Five minutes later: "Here's your check."

Also, our lawyer that day had the best advice: "If this goes to court, the only winners are me and their lawyer. We both get to have another vacation this year."

More unprofessional than buying services and refusing to pay for them?

You can't control and aren't responsible for how other people behave. I think this falls firmly into the "two wrongs don't make a right" territory as well.

> OpenSCAD isn't really parametric CAD. It's a programming language; it's parametric for that reason. But it's not really CAD

Maybe this is pedantic, but why wouldn't OpenSCAD qualify as CAD exactly? It's still "Computer-Aided Design"? Sure, the UI/UX is different, but is there some qualifier to CAD around the UI/UX?.

It's me being picky about the meaning of the word "aided".

CAD is software to help people make complex things without having to do complex geometry/trig/general maths.

OpenSCAD doesn't really "aid" you much with this. It's a 2D/3D shape generator with boolean operations, but because it doesn't let you do constraint operations on 2D geometry, and it doesn't let you do further operations on the fundamental geometry (faces, edges, vertices) of the generated 3D solids either, it never liberates you from most of the difficult work.

I'm not even sure how much it aids you with "design": it doesn't support chamfers or fillets, it offers no tools for adding drafts or making truly uniform thicknesses. And it only generates meshes.

OpenSCAD is useful. I'm not saying it's not. But it is useful mostly for drawing strongly geometric or mathematically-derived solids and producing a mesh from it.

This highlights something that I wish was more prevalent, Path Coverage. I'm not sure of what testing suites handle path coverage, but I know XDebug for PHP could manage it back when I was doing PHP work. Simple line coverage doesn't tell you enough of the story while path coverage should let you be sure you've tested all code paths of a unit. Mix that with input fuzzing and you should be able to develop comprehensive unit tests for critical units in your codebase. Yes, I'm aware that's just one part of a large puzzle.

> For example, in OpenAPI 3.1, the type field of a schema can be a single string (e.g., "string") or an array of strings (e.g., ["string", "null"]).

> In a statically typed language like Go, this is usually handled by using interface{} (which loses type safety) or complex pointer logic.

Having worked on JSON Schema parsing in go very recently, I disagree with this assessment. You create a `Type` in one of a few (2?) ways, depending on your specific needs. The simple method being that it's a `[]string` under the hood with a custom UnmarshalJSON receiver function. If reproducing the exact input structure is important you can cover that by making `Type` into a struct with a `[]string` and a `bool` to track if it was originally a single or an array. Then you have custom MarshalJSON and UnmarshalJSON receiver functions. That is, in fact, how I've seen multiple existing go JSON Schema libraries handle that variable type. No use of `any` or complex pointers.

Having just swapped to a new TV on my Harmony setup I was concerned if it was still going to work. Lucky me, it did.

I really REALLY want someone to manufacture the thin harmony RF remote with a simple receiver puck with an open firmware. That's all we'd need because the HA crowd would be all over it and have it doing anything you want.

Why not render the markdown as HTML in this scenario?

Markdown is readable as-is I didn’t see the need to add more complexity here.

Just keep in mind, that could block legit users who are outside the country. One case being someone traveling and wanting to buy something to deliver home. Another case being a non-resident wanting to buy something to send to family in the service zone.

I'm not saying don't block, just saying be aware of the unintended blocks and weigh them.

Also consider tourists outside of their home country. If, eg I'm in Indonesia when Black Friday hits and I'm trying to buy things back home and the site is blocked; shit. I mean, personally I can just use my house as as a VPJ exit node thanks to Tailscale, but most people aren't technical enough to do that.

Great comment - thank you.

Their point was that WotC doesn't get the same flak that Value does when MtG is worse, by far, than cosmetic loot boxes.

Yes, I'm calling that questionable. Says who? TCGs have entire formats designed in opposition to the high cost random booster shit. I think that's pretty good evidence that there's high negative sentiment.

Valve is simply larger and took legal heat for people misusing the API.

I'm saying based on sentiment I see as a gamer.

There's plenty of outrage about paid loot boxes and viewing them as terrible, terrible gambling that exploits consumers and ought to be regulated/banned. Not everyone agrees with this take, but it's still fairly widespread.

Now, you do see people pointing out that trading card games are basically still gambling -- and no one really disagrees with that -- you just don't see the same level of outrage about it. What you usually see is grudging acceptance, ala "what're ya gonna do, that's just how these card games are".