This is a really great post - and what they've built here is very impressive.
I wonder if we're at the point where the cost of building and maintaining this yourselves (assisted with an AI Copilot) is now more effective than an off-the-shelf?
It feels like there's a LOT of moving parts here, but also it's deeply tailored to their own setup.
FWIW - I tried pointing Claude at the post and asking it to design an implementation, (like the post said to do) and it struggled - but perhaps I prompted it wrong.
I had this exact idea, I pointed Codex to it, with giving it context of our environment which is pretty complex. It is struggling, but that is because even our dev experience where I work is not great and not documented, so that would need to be lifted before I can reliably get an agent setup as well integrated as this blog post details.
> As long as you have Pricing on your website your product is not open source in the true spirit of open sourceness.
It's an MIT license. That IS open source.
If they have a commercial strategy - that's a GoodThing. It means they have a viable strategy for staying in business, and keeping the project maintained.
MIT == OpenSource. Pricing == Sustainable. That's a horse worth backing IMO.
Exactly, if everything looked too good to be true and there was no transparency or hint of a business model it’s actually less attractive for some who value predictability.
You are not wrong but in most cases this is a trojan horse. It has the characteristics of a classic rugpullware.
At the top level looks like open source but it is not really because parts (the most useful ones) of the project are not. Imagine if python was open source but the core libraries where not. You wont call this open source in the true spirit of open source. You could make the argument that at least it is sustainable because they a have now a business model. It doesn't add up.
I prefer more of a honest take on software. There is nothing wrong to make money while contributing back to the community in some meaningful way or by simply being transparent. In fact this is the best kind and there are plenty of good examples.
All I am saying is that when I see such projects I tend to think that in most cases they are dishonest to themselves or their communities or both.
I've finished up there now, so this is purely retrospective.
For them - the workaround (sadly) was -- a lack of testing.
I was really surprised that in a heavily regulated environment (this project faced off to a regulator) Integration testing (which has gotten really easy on the JVM thanks to stuff like TestContainers) just didn't exist.
That could be symptom of a broader lack of a test-driven culture though.
That's not what happened here. The BBC edited footage to make it appear that Trump said something he didn't in the leadup to the Jan-6 riots.
My personal biases are pretty strongly in favour of the BBC, but what they did here was really bad. It's appropriate that heads roll. I wish more orgs would have the same level of accountability.
The problem here, like the gaza documentaries, is it's produced by outside companies, and the BBC -- like most companies -- sucks at governing outsourced providers.
I wonder if we're at the point where the cost of building and maintaining this yourselves (assisted with an AI Copilot) is now more effective than an off-the-shelf?
It feels like there's a LOT of moving parts here, but also it's deeply tailored to their own setup.
FWIW - I tried pointing Claude at the post and asking it to design an implementation, (like the post said to do) and it struggled - but perhaps I prompted it wrong.
reply