I'm working on this command-center project. Human describes the mission. Agents define the mission, breakdown and come up with a plan, and drive it.
Any conversation
I remain ambiguous. This morning I used pi+gpt5.6 to create a color scheme based on evergarden.moe. It works, and I haven’t checked how well it stay true to the style used in vim-bundled schemas. Before I wouldn’t have done this, and now I can. But I don’t know if it is good. github.com/…/evergarden.vim
I find myself building bespoke tooling for my own and workflows these days, not only because of the obvious reason of software being so much cheaper to build, but also because there are SO MANY options for solving any given problem that it feels impossible to evaluate all of them.
If it's not a crucial piece of tech for a work problem then it often feels like paving my own way is both cheaper mentally (kind of amazing that's true these days) and probably a better fit.
I like this guy I drew
ibb.co/vxRtMxQC
code quality is about coupling.
coupling is not a technical property of the code bytes.
code acquires its meaning in contact with the cultural environment, and coupling is about meaning.
two constants with no semantic relationship are nonetheless coupled in pragmatics if they refer to the same domain concept.
if your goal is to minimise the time integral of future work, you must understand your domain: it decides which lines will need changing.
to carve up a codebase is to carve up the world.


