I love jj and am a fan of the ideas of AT protocol, so tangled has been on my radar for a while. Last I checked though, it sounded like it was much better suited for open source code, not private repositories. Is that still the case?

We don't yet support private repos, correct. This is very high priority on our roadmap (~6-8wks out).

This seems like an important caveat to the SWE-bench, but the trend is still clearly AI becoming more and more capable.

> the trend is still clearly AI becoming more and more capable.

Isn't it precisely what this article is questioning?

I love web components. The one thing I really wish browsers supported though was a per-site custom element registry that persisted across page loads.

Give me 10mb and an API like service workers have to manage a library of custom elements that can be used on my site as soon as the page loads.

Static bundle + caching can be chosen by the site/app author.

We've been experimenting with various skills and MCPs in our day-to-day Ruby development at Poll Everywhere. This is the internal skill that's been most useful for preserving the context window while letting agents explore Ruby code.

It's a CLI wrapper around Ruby's Prism gem that lets the agent do this:

  $ prism -o app/models/user.rb

  User < ApplicationRecord [1-75]
    includes Agreeable
    includes Auditable
    has_many :polls
    has_many :questions, through: :polls
    has_many :votes
    has_many :reports, dependent: :destroy
    #audit_create [41-43]
    #allowed_to_participate_in?(poll) [45-66]
    #restricted_from_participation_in?(poll) [68-70]
    #recently_created? [72-74]

  $ prism -m 'recently_created?' app/models/user.rb

  === METHOD: recently_created? ===
  Lines 72-74:
    def recently_created?
      created_at.after?(5.minutes.ago)
    end

The idea is to give the agent a token-efficient way to understand what's going on in Ruby code.

Back in 2004, while bored in my college dorm, I learned the Ian Knot from this site. I've used it ever since. A few weeks ago, my 10 year old decided it was time to learn how to tie his shoes "dad's way". I was pleasantly surprised to see the site was still up, so I used it to help teach him how to do it.

Also been exclusively Ian Knot every since. Lightening fast and consistent.

Funny anecdote: In college when I learned it, the woman I was with was leaving my place and when she was putting on her shoes I said "wait I gotta show you something" and dropped to one knee to tie my shoes. She looked terrified until I clarified it was my tying my shoes quickly and not a proposal.

Same. I also use Ian's Secure Knot in places where you'd use a double-knot https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/secureknot.htm

This is the one I use, too. Learned this and the near-instant one, but this is actually really practical and produces a nice and even knot. Winner!

I also use this one everyday. I learned the quick one back in the day, but I value never ever having to stop and re-tie my laces.

There's an awesome book Ian put out with laces on the cover and illustrations of all his lacing and knot suggestions. Potential future gift!

I also learned it back in 2004 and it was one of the single most useful skills I have ever acquired. My shoes never come untied anymore. Coaching baseball, when a kid's shoe comes untied, I re-tie it for them with the Ian knot. Life changing skill.

The Ian knot is just as likely to come untied the knot formed by the regular method or the bunny ear method. Because all result in the same knot.

If you noticed a change after you switched knots, you might have been inadvertently creating granny knots:

https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/grannyknot.htm

Amongst all of the technological advances available to us, tying my shoes using the Ian Knot is the one thing that will get people to accuse me of witchcraft.

I've tried a couple of these "better" shoe tying knots and have never had the patience to learn them to the point they become habitual. So I can spend 2 seconds tying a shoelace the way I learned when I was 5 years old, or I can spend 5 minutes fumbling with some other knot. I go with what works for me. Optimizing the time I spend tying my shoes just isn't anywhere on the radar of things that would have a worthwhile ROI.

I've been 100% slip-ons for years.

There are laces designed to convert a shoe meant for regular laces into a slip-on, such as https://www.locklaces.com/

I've used them and they worked pretty well.

Is `jj split` a good option?

I've tried it, but then I have to remember what has been pushed.

Tangle has a great breakdown of what this means in their article yesterday: https://www.readtangle.com/emil-bove-trump-lawyer-federal-ju...

Turns out, it's complicated.

Part of me wonders if I should be on ozempic since I have a family history of several of the issues it's reported to help with.

Another part of me wonders if all the ozempic headlines I've seen over the past few months are just an incredibly effective and well orchestrated ad campaign.

The symptoms you are describing are indicative of a subtle and well orchestrated ad campaign. You start seeing a lot of news articles about [commercial product]. You start hearing a lot of seemingly grassroots talk about [commercial product]. [Commercial product] is touted as miraculous and too good to be true. You start thinking maybe you need [commercial product]...

Ask your doctor, you may be suffering from acute advertisement-induced judgment impairment.

It's possible, but I don't think it would be necessary. I know multiple people who have lost weight on it, and it sells itself.

After years of talking about the overweight epidemic, there's now medication that solves it. It's impossible not to talk about, whether your angle is "too good to be true" or "amazing step forward for humanity" It's ripe journalism bait and if a journalist decides to investigate they are going to write an article. Even if they don't find anything of value.

Or it could just be an incredibly effective drug?

It could also be both at the same time.

I used this to build my current keyboard a few months ago. It was my first hand-wired keyboard, and this made it much more approachable. Thanks for creating it!

What HTTP method would you expect the second example to use? `GET /users/delete?id=354`?

The first has the advantage of being a little clearer at the HTTP level with `DELETE /users/354`.

GET because that is also the default for all other elements I think. form, a, img, iframe, video...

Ok, but what is the advantage to be "clear at the http level"?

GET shouldn't be used for a delete action, because it's specified as a safe method[0], which means essentially read-only. On a practical level, clients (like browsers) are free to cache and retry GET requests, which could lead to deletes not occurring or occurring when not desired.

[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7231#section-4.2.1

That means I can make you delete things by embedding that delete URL as the source of an image on a page you visit.

GET is defined to be safe by HTTP. There have been decades of software development that have happened with the understanding that GETs can take place without user approval. To abuse GET for unsafe actions like deleting things is a huge problem.

This has already happened before in big ways. 37Signals built a bunch of things this way and then the Google Web Accelerator came along, prefetching links, and their customers suffered data loss.

When they were told they were abusing HTTP, they ignored it and tried to detect GWA instead of fixing their bug. Same thing happened again, more things deleted because GET was misused.

GET is safe by definition. Don’t abuse it for unsafe actions.

You can already do POST requests by embedding forms and/or JS. And with the proposed <button method=DELETE> you could also embed that. So I don't see how the proposal of adding more HTTP methods to html elements prevents abuse.

I think you're misunderstanding what your parent meant by "abuse".

In in this context it meant "misuse", there's no malicious actor involved. GET should have no side-effect which enables optimisation like prefetching or caching: they used it for an effectful operation (deletion) so prefetching caused a bug. It's the developers fault, for not respecting the guarantees expected from GET.

If they'd used POST, everything would have been fine. There's much less of an argument for using `POST /whatever/delete` rather than `DELETE /whatever`. At this point it's a debate on whether REST is a good fit or not for the application.

It prevents "required" abuse of the HTTP protocol (having to pipeline everything via POST even though that's not its purpose), without the requirement of adding javascript to the page.

Well, its correct, so its likely to be optimized correctly, to aid in debugging, to make testing easier and clearer, and generally just to be correct.

Correctness is very rarely a bad goal to have.

Also, of course, different methods have different rules, which you know as an SE. For example, PUT, UPDATE and DELETE have very different semantics in terms of repeatability of requests, for example.

GETs have no side effects, by specification. DELETEs can have side effects.