Daniel

oh no what happened to all the principals and morals from last month

@fdbedout Creo que es el mejor de la historia de Colombia? por títulos se me hace que si?

Actualización: Lucho Díaz 10 años como profesional. 17 títulos. Suma hoy la Copa de Alemania 2026 DFB Pokal. Tercer título con Bayern. 3-0 frente al Stuttgart Asistencia para gol de Kane. Multicampeon con: -Junior -Porto -Liverpool -Bayern Múnich

menos mal que todavia hay creativos con ganas de trabajar y clientes sin miedo a gastar.

Stimulating. Rewarding. Fulfilling. Especially when nailing that perfect abstraction. Now it’s mostly arguing with a prompt box that keeps trying to gaslight me. Faster, yes. but 0.01 the experience of what it used to be.

I talked about this on the standup podcast yesterday, but I'll reiterate here: if you're losing sleep because you need to keep feeding the agents STOP, I promise it's not worth it. You got caught in a [prompt -> reward] dopamine cycle and you're addicted to the feeling of the token slot machine. It's not your fault, but you need to escape before it grinds you into a pulp and you can't look at a computer for a month (this was me). If you can break out of it and spend some more time offline, or find other healthy sources of dopamine in hobbies/etc, you'll start to realize just how warped your perception was and that the thing you were chasing wasn't actually productive.

I just looked. We had Sonnet 4.0 (yeah, last century tech) build us an OpenAPI to Python and TypeScript generator last year (Python + minijinja templates). Total lines of code 2400 and hasn't been touched since. This thing is not rocket science. x.com/jessfraz/statu…

Turns out trauma bonding in space really is forever. 😂 🚀🌟 #BattlestarGalactica

the whole sdk category that stainless was in never made much sense to me it turned what should be a simple run anywhere process and put it behind a cloud service that forced all these awkward workflows we've been building on and sponsoring heyapi for the past year

If Steve Jobs were still alive, he would have the moral authority to face and maybe even to solve this problem. But I doubt anyone in the phone business now does.

Primera Keynote en español en PyCon 🥲

The most revealing thing about this AI leadership paper is that it reads less like a vision for innovation and more like a glossy whitepaper for a 21st century East India Company. Every generation of incumbents discovers a new moral vocabulary for why they alone should control transformative technology. In the 90s it was cryptography. We were told strong encryption was too dangerous to spread because terrorists, rogue states, chaos, dual-use, etc. So the US crippled exports, weakened products, slowed adoption, and kneecapped parts of its own software industry. Right up until reality steamrolled the policy and we woke up to its stupidity and then eCommerce, secure communications, software signing, and the modern internet exploded and gave us tremendous benefits. Now the exact same priesthood has returned with AI. - “Dual-use.” - “Strategic advantage.” - “Model distillation.” - “National security.” - “Responsible access.” A few different nouns but mostly the same ones. Same instinct: Centralize control, gatekeep compute, fuse state and corporate power, and call it safety. The funniest part is that this strategy is almost perfectly designed to accelerate the thing they claim to fear. You do not stop a rival superpower (who happens to be the absolute best at scaling energy and manufacturing and who has a choke-hold on rare Earths refinement) from building domestic capability by permanently attempting to strangle them. You create the economic and political incentive for total self-sufficiency. We have already done that as Jensen warned. We went from 100% market to nearly 0%. Huawei is now manufacturing millions of chips. DeepSeek v4 trained on them. They have more energy than the rest of the world combined. Meanwhile, we have activists and anti-economic fools like AOC and Bernie pushing for data center moratoriums and we can't build a single bullet train in 20 years and folks fighting to not expand the energy grid here and new nuclear plants getting tied up in environmental regulation for a decade. The sanctions did the exact opposite of what the hawks wanted. They jumpstarted a moribund, dinosaur of a Chinese chips industry. We basically said to the people who happen control the most powerful manufacturing engine on the planet "we intend to squeeze you." They rightly saw it as an existential threat. The sanctions become the industrial policy. Huawei. SMIC. Domestic lithography. Packaging. Memory. Entire Chinese supply chains that did not exist at serious scale a decade ago now exist precisely because Washington convinced Beijing they had no choice. Brilliant work. So the endgame here is what exactly? 1) Push China into a Manhattan Project for chips and AI. 2) Increase the strategic value of Taiwan even further. 3) Once China reaches self sufficiency that can invade Taiwan and choke off our own super advanced chips where are made there exclusively (and no we don't have even close to enough TSMC factories in Arizona or anywhere else in the world). That's every NVIDIA chip. Every Google tensor chip. Every Apple chip. Every chip in you iPhone and Android phone. Every Amazon chip. The chips in your car and truck and hair dryer and washing machine. 4) Escalate a cold tech war into a permanent civilizational bloc conflict that is likely to turn into a shooting war at one point. 5) Fragment the global software ecosystem. 6) Create American AI aristocracies protected by regulation and compute licensing. And somehow call this “open innovation.” Meanwhile the actual history of software keeps screaming the opposite lesson: Knowledge diffuses, open ecosystems win, developers route around gatekeepers, and attempts to permanently contain computation usually fail. What really jumps off the page is the assumption that a tiny cluster of frontier labs should become quasi-sovereign actors, deciding who gets intelligence, who gets compute, who gets models, and which countries are permitted to participate in the future. Not elected governments. Not open markets. Not open-source communities. A handful of corporations sitting beside the national security state, insisting that concentration of power is necessary to protect democracy. You almost have to admire the audacity.

The Strait of what, mate? The Islamic Republic of where? Never heard of it

It isn't unexpected that the focus of the Bun Rust rewrite is on the anti-Zig side more than anything, since the internet loves to hate. What is unexpected and unfortunate is that leadership within Bun hasn't tried to steer the conversation away from that at all. There are so many positive and interesting takeaways from this and I'm not really seeing any of them pushed as the primary message. A positive thing that hasn't been talked about at all is how far Bun came thanks to Zig. And even if you dump it now, its meaningful for how good Zig was to even build a product to this point and impact by any metric. I would've loved to see anyone in leadership say this. On the interesting side is how fungible programming languages are nowadays. Programming languages used to be LOCK IN, and they're increasingly not so. You think the Bun rewrite in Rust is good for Rust? Bun has shown they can be in probably any language they want in roughly a week or two. Rust is expendable. Its useful until its not then it can be thrown out. That's interesting! There's been a lot of talk about memory safety and no doubt Rust provides more guarantees than Zig. But I'd love to see a better analysis of why Bun in particular suffered so much rather than take the language-blame path. How could engineering as a practice been more rigorous to prevent this? What were the largest sources of crashes other programs should watch out for? How does Rust prevent them? How could Zig theoretically prevent them? That's interesting. I know the official blog post hasn't come out yet from Bun. But they're smart enough to know that that PR would stir up controversy the moment it opened, or they should've been. And plenty in the company have been tweeting and writing about it. Its somewhat telling to me in various dimensions what they chose to talk about first. I tend to think I'm pretty good at corporate PR/comms (especially when it comes to developer audiences) and I think appealing to the negative is never the right long term strategy; it does work to get short term eyes though.

this perspective sacrifices nvidia and keeps AI labs the winner while saying it's about beating china you can also beat china by aggressively selling nvidia into their markets and preventing their inevitable self sufficiency of course that would sacrifice the AI labs instead

@mitsuhiko Fuck it. I am migrating everything to Svelte

Say what you want: this is impressive. github.com/oven-sh/bun/pu…

so should bun even have its own parsers and bundler anymore or should it just build with the void0 crates

Anthropic just killed any automated usage of Claude including ralph loops, apps like t3 code, conductor, etc. So happy to have switched everything to @OpenAI

Imagine being one of the people who actually believed this

Finally able to talk about what I've been heads-down on for 6 months at @nvidia 🦀⚡ We just open-sourced cuda-oxide — an experimental rustc backend that lets you write CUDA kernels in pure Rust. No DSLs. No FFI. No source-to-source step. Single source. Short🧵👇