Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Suresh
970 posts
Suresh
@itzsuresh
Building https://t.co/vnRiAExEkF & https://t.co/idCwlDgdnY
Bangalore Katılım Aralık 2008
599 Takip Edilen254 Takipçiler
@bhalligan Can you publish them somewhere? Would love to translate some of these into playbooks on @dexy_so
English
I'm collecting a list of the best agents, skills, automations that CEOs are building for themselves. Tell me yours and I'll tell you mine 👇
English
Suresh retweetledi
India makes more milk than any country on Earth. Italy has 400 cheeses. India has roughly zero aged ones. Ever wondered why?
English
Had the same issue. @antigravity
Vignesh Rajendran@vickyonit
Hey @Google / @antigravity team, I hit a case where Antigravity silently stopped replying due to local worktree setup issues. Logs showed failures around extensions.worktreeConfig, stale prunable worktrees, and untracked nested .claude/worktrees/ dirs being patched as files. Fixing Git worktree metadata + excluding nested worktrees restored replies. Would be great if Antigravity surfaced this as an actionable workspace error instead of hanging.
English
Suresh retweetledi
@KalyanVarma @nixxin Nope. I was able to switch from Claude Code to Codex with 0 issues cold-turkey. And regularly use Antigravity as well.
English
Since I am on same journey as yours, I have a Q. I am using Claude code and keep hitting the limits. I am so tempted to switch to codex during that time to finish off stuff. But at some point I am scared the competition will kick in and they will mess each other code. Did you face the same problem ?
English
yep. confirmed. OpenAI has ChatGPT'ised Codex. it's now going beyond the scope of what it is told to do.
I'm now having to ask it to undo its mess.
Nikhil Pahwa@nixxin
Looks like OpenAI is in the process of screwing up Codex the way it screwed up ChatGPT. I'm now getting the same rabbit hole suggestions. For example, got this at the end of a finalised plan: Next useful step: 1. map this domain model directly onto the current *** schema and identify missing tables/views 2. derive API contracts from it 2. derive an implementation backlog for *** migration
English
Suresh retweetledi
Ranking engineers by token spend is like me ranking my marketing team by who spent the most money.
We may not have hit our KPIs, but Joe spent $200k on a branded blimp that only flies over his own house, so he’s getting promoted to VP!
Don't mistake a high burn rate for a high success rate.
English
Suresh retweetledi
In 2003, a German film crew followed a nomadic family in Mongolia's Gobi Desert. The film, The Story of the Weeping Camel, was nominated for an Oscar.
A mother camel had rejected her newborn after a brutal two-day labour. Without her milk, the calf would die.
The family knew one option. They sent their two young sons on a journey across the desert to find a musician who could perform a ritual called Hoos, a chanting ceremony passed down for centuries specifically for this moment.
The musician came. The ritual was performed. The mother camel wept real tears and turned to her calf for the first time.
The film crew had gone to document a way of life. They had no idea they would capture that.
UNESCO added the Hoos ritual to its Intangible Cultural Heritage list in 2015, alongside flamenco, the Mediterranean diet, and the art of Neapolitan pizza making.
English
Suresh retweetledi
Suresh retweetledi
made my computer dramatically play BBC news music before every meeting
English
The gap between using AI and scaling AI almost always comes down to one thing: can your team reproduce what your best person figured out? The companies that scale are the ones codifying their AI workflows, not just experimenting with them.
Bernard Marr@BernardMarr
Most companies are using AI. Very few are scaling it. I sat down with Tanuja Randery, Managing Director of AWS EMEA, to ask what she sees separating the leaders from the laggards. She has a front-row seat to how European businesses are actually deploying this technology, and her answer was direct. Three things. First, the CEO has to be personally committed, visibly and consistently. The organization watches what the leader does, and if AI is treated as someone else's project, it stays someone else's project. Second, build and empower the people who can actually do the work. Give them the tools, the access, and the freedom to reinvent processes. Keeping AI locked inside a single team or department kills momentum. Third, align AI directly with your business strategy and outcomes. The companies that are winning are the ones where AI investment is tied to specific, needle-moving priorities, not running as a side initiative hoping to prove its value. The numbers behind this are striking. AWS's new Unlocking Europe's AI Potential report finds that companies at the advanced stage of AI adoption report 62% productivity gains, compared to 40% for those still at the basic stage. That gap is widening, and the window to close it is narrowing. The short video clip from my conversation with Tanuja is linked below. What's your experience? Is AI genuinely embedded in your organization's strategy, or is it still living on the edges?
English
Suresh retweetledi
The Delve scandal is the perfect excuse for me to write my long-simmering rant about SOC-2 and InfoSec.
1. 90% of SOC-2 is security theater. We couldn't pass audit until we had completed an annual performance review (absurd requirement for a team of 4). It is mind-boggling to me that we collectively decided to adopt an accounting framework (and accounting firms) to validate infosec.
2. SOC-2 startups are (at least in part) culpable for this mess, thanks to Jevon's Paradox. It's now "easier" to get it, so getting the certification is table stakes for an enterprise contract.
"But Hari, startups can now sell to enterprise more easily" — nope.
3. I would argue that the approach for selling to enterprise was *better* prior to 2017:
— Enterprises were more open to doing pilots without SOC-2, because it was harder to do and not table stakes. This is, obviously, a more efficient way to transact and explore ad hoc relationships.
— You'd simply have to do actually useful things like pentesting, security questionnaires, etc. to show you were serious about security... which you have to do today anyway, because SOC-2 is a terrible proxy for real security.
And enterprises have gotten easier to sell into, because they realized they need to be more tech forward. Correlation, not causation.
SOC-2-as-table-stakes killed a more pragmatic, trust-based sales motion. All in all, the introduction of SOC-2 as an industry standard introduced *more* friction into the process, racked up *higher* costs for their customers, for ultimately the *same or worse* security outcomes. We would all be better off if we threw the standard in the trash, because then we might actually come up with something sensible.
4. Perhaps the Delve takedown was penned by a competitor, but — if the facts hold up — that doesn't make it any less valid. This is a wildly competitive space, and I've seen some truly nasty stuff happen, from an observer's seat. But people are using that to discredit the piece, even though the facts so far are pretty damning (regardless of the biases of the speaker).
5. All of the SOC-2 companies are roughly equivalent (no matter what they tell you), and you should optimize for a good service at a reasonable price and grit your teeth and get it done when you think you have enough PMF where enterprises might want it.
6. Don't even get me started on GDPR and CCPA. Cookie banners take quality-adjusted years off peoples' lives, just like cigarettes and the DMV. And just like SOC-2 is security theater, they are privacy theater.
7. Most importantly: getting dinged because you didn't pass security reviews has nothing to do with security. It means your buyer / champion didn't care enough to push it through. If you're sorely lacking, it might be an actual issue. You should (obviously) do the important stuff (vulnerability scans, pentests, 2FA, be careful with phishing), but after that...
Spend your time building something that buyers want to rip out of your hands. Your security problems will start disappearing.
English
Suresh retweetledi
Game designers figured this out decades ago and it cost millions in failed launches.
Will Wright built SimCity with a fully accurate traffic simulation. Testers hated it. The cars behaved realistically, which meant nobody could build a functioning city because real traffic is an unsolvable nightmare. He had to make the simulation dumber before the game became fun.
The tension is permanent: the more accurately you model a system, the more it punishes the participant. Real medieval economies kept 90% of the population in subsistence farming. A historically accurate fantasy world doesn't produce heroes. It produces serfs.
Tolkien solved this by making his economy deliberately vague. No one knows what a gold coin buys in Gondor. That ambiguity is a design choice, not a shortcut.
The Reddit post is funny. The lesson underneath it is one of the hardest problems in simulation design: fidelity and fun are opposing forces, and you have to pick which one wins.
Oliver Dahl@OliverWDahl
The more I think about this the funnier it gets
English
@saranormous antigravity is so much better, but incredibly slow. we need WebMCP like yesterday, but i don't think most walled-garden services will support them any time soon.
English
this is the missing layer. it is not the model, it's codified context - what the agent can do, what it can't, and who approved the workflow.
playbooks that encode those boundaries are how enterprises ship agents without the cold sweats.
swyx 🇸🇬 AIE Singapore!@swyx
example of the kind of Details that matter - sweating the enterprise needs to safely deploy agents in ways that dont make compliance and IT officers break out in cold sweats at night. Twitter may be happy with --dangerously-skip-permissions but lets get real here about what's needed to deploy this stuff across 10's of 000's of engineers per org
English
the wild horse being smaller than the domesticated horse is a narrative violation and thematically very crucial
Hoops@Hoopss
Domestic horse meeting a Przewalski’s horse, the last truly wild horse species on Earth.
English
The current push for engineers to ramp up their token spend assumes that more compute automatically equals more value.
It doesn’t.
If you aren't careful, you just end up with "tool-shaped objects" - processes that look like engineering but produce zero meaningful output.
Will Manidis@WillManidis
English
Exactly. But CFOs won't just want to know how much was spent - they’ll want to know what was built. If token spend is just for one-off conversations, it’s a cost center. If it’s used to execute and refine standardized AI workflows, it’s an asset.
We'll soon see the goal shifting from AI as a chat habit to AI as a versioned business process that can be measured, repeated, and scaled.
Aaron Levie@levie
Without getting into the specific numbers, this underlying concept and trend is going to be very real. For any worker who is able to wield AI agents effectively in an organization, their compute budgets are just going to monotonically go up over time. This will of course start in engineering, where we already know developers can run multiple agents in parallel, or have projects going over night. But this eventually hit the rest of knowledge work as well. Lawyers that can create and review more drafts, marketed that can build more campaigns and test more ideals in parallel, sales reps that can reach out to more customers and process more leads. Many of these activities will essentially be token-dependent in how much work a single person can do. These aren’t chatbot workflows answering a simple question, but agents that are running and processing through incredible amounts of data at scale, and generating all new forms of information. Companies will have to figure out how they budget for this, and it likely won’t be an IT budget item over time, but ultimately owned and allocated by the business. Maybe the CFO is ultimately the head of AI :-).
English