Kara

3/ Where it's at right now: Context switch ~330ns Thread create+join ~6µs Semaphore ~4.6M ops/sec Clean under ASan + UBSan. Feedback is welcomed.

2/ i've annoying part of concurrency is always debugging races that show up once and never again. So every scheduling event gets logged to a binary trace (GTR2 format) and can be replayed exactly, or fuzzed with a seeded PRNG to go looking for trouble on purpose.

Since Feb I've been building gthreads : a user-space cooperative threading runtime in C17 and x86-64 assembly. No OS threads, no deps. Context switches, schedulers, sync primitives, deterministic trace/replay - all written by hand. github.com/k5602/gthreads #C #Assembly #Linux

@CommandCodeAI @AhmadBilalDev @saqibameen hmmm

@wolf65602 we can make that happen, in a couple of hours. @AhmadBilalDev @saqibameen please ship

Laguna S 2.1 is now free in Command Code. US open source model that's most capable of agentic coding in its weight class by a wide margin. 🔹 118B total parameters, with 8B active per token 🔹 70.2% Terminal-Bench 2.1 · 40.4% DeepSWE v1.1 🔹 Available free to all subscribers

@CommandCodeAI i would prefer if it's not free but with full context window, but anyway thanks for fast work.

@wolf65602 it's free :)

@CommandCodeAI Laguna where?

Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are live in Command Code. Available on Pro, Max and Team plans Gemini 3.6 Flash: 🔹 Better coding, knowledge work and multimodal performance 🔹 17% fewer output tokens vs 3.5 Flash, with a lower cost per token Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 🔹 Fast, cost effective 3.5-class model, ideal for subagents 🔹 350 output tokens/second Try now with $ cmd --model google/gemini-3.6-flash $ cmd --model google/gemini-3.5-flash-lite

Open source quietly changed the definition of premium. Today, paid software has to justify its existence every month.

أحمد سليمان فرغل أحسن واحد شوفته بيشرح حاجة على يوتيوب أكيد عشان بنتكلم نفس اللغة الأم فالموضوع فارق .. بس برضو عمري عمري ما اتفرجت على فيديو لنفس التوبيك اللي هو بيشرحه وطلع الفيديو بتاعه هو الخسران

No software development organization needs a standardized process. 40 years ago, Watts Humphrey, funded by the US Department of Defense, came up with something called the Capability Maturity Model (CMM)—one of many grasping-at-straw attempts to get DoD spending and quality under control. The model was forced onto all DoD contractors and eventually infected the corporate world. Everybody at the time was doing hard-core, huge-design-up-front, phase-gated (waterfall) software development, and CMM assumed that was just the way the world worked. CMM thinking mandated that the entire organization standardize on a single process under centralized control. It was the military, after all. Hierarchy and uniformity were a given. Like SAFe nowadays, CMM was better than chaos, but didn't really achieve its objectives by most measures. Nonetheless, ideas from CMM are the corporate version of the zombie apocalypse. They refuse to die and define an of-course-things-have-to-work-that-way alternative reality. For example, it's a CMM notion that the entire organization must march in lockstep to the Scrum (or SAFe, or (formal) Kanban Method, or lately, Spec-driven-AI) drum. We don't. The people best equipped to figure out how to do the work are the ones doing the work. It's a system based on trust, based on the idea that the people you hired because of their competence are actually competent, and you have to trust them to get the work done. In the best organizations, the teams come up with their own processes. Sure, they can draw on the Scrums and Kanbans of the world for ideas, but ultimately, no standardized process works everywhere (anywhere?). Processes must be customized to the needs of the teams. This is not a new radical notion, by the way. Toyota has been doing it on its lines for 60 years. (Sidebar: the people in the "don't understand Agile but nevertheless hate it " community claim that Agile advocated no process at all. That's nonsense. Process is good, but you need agility in your process thinking. Self-organizing teams figure out the best way for the team to work. They have a process, just not _your_ process.) Of course, you can't have an every-team-for-itself chaos. The system is not adversarial, full of lazy people who hate one another, as many seem to think. The teams coordinate with each other constantly and adjust and adapt as needed. (Spotify calls this "alignment.") If they can't find alignment, management provides coordination and guidance (not directives and force) and always provides active support. Alignment is hard to do remotely, so get everybody together in one room every so often. So, process is good. Trusting teams to figure out how best to do their own work is good. Whipping people into uniformity is not. Let's all start acting as if we're a community, not a gulag.

Believing AI is conscious (or will be soon) is perhaps like the alchemists who believed they could turn lead into gold. Of course it’s possible, the cosmos does it. But turns out the alchemists were going about it completely the wrong way and eventually needed a whole new understanding of physics that wasn’t available to them at the time. Chemistry was never going to get them there, they needed quantum mechanics and special relativity. Same will likely be true of ‘artificial’ consciousness.

Ship the best product. Use lots of AI, some AI, maybe no AI. Just be the best.

DSA

you can outsource your thinking but you cannot outsource your understanding

@Just_Eve96 الف مبروك، ربنا يزيدك من علمه

Finally 🥳🎉

It's so depressing when you finish a project man. Or hit a technical milestone. God damn it

With Great Powers, Comes the absolute Certainty that will turn you into a Right Cunt

In the long run, the world rewards quality. In the short run, keep that in mind. Do the harder thing today to make tomorrow easier.