Is it really that bad of an idea to experiment, put things out into public, and see what works and what sticks? They haven't abandoned agent-browser and portless, which came out of these vercel-labs efforts because they're useful tools and people are using them.
I don't think so, I literally think it's fun to see. Sharing projects regardless of how done, mature, reliable, correct or not they are, feels like a net positive for humanity.
I had claude write itself a post-message hook that regex's the message for any variant of "You're right" and launch a full-screen transparent confetti effect.
Yeah, as someone with strict export compliance concerns which forces us to use Bedrock because its exclusively us-based inference in our AWS account, this does nothing for me. Frankly, nothing Anthropic has shipped over the past 6 months besides the models themselves has been useful to our company, despite running into the same problems they're trying to solve with all of those features (managed, remote agents). There's not really a good solution, as AgentCore runtime sucks and is expensive. You basically have to build this yourself because nobody is solving for self-hosted managed infra for agents, and we don't really have the time to build this sort of system on top of building our actual product. It's very frustrating for them to put this out as a win, when it doesn't help the people who are using AWS Bedrock to begin with.
You can only ctrl+o the most recent response, and its a lot worse than knowing the # of lines read or the pattern grepped, which are useful because it can tell you what the agent is thrashing on trying to find, or what context would be useful to give it upfront in the future.
WPF was full of footguns and rigid organization to alleviate said footguns. MVVM (Model, View, Viewmodel) architecture was so much boilerplate and toil to work with. It feels like the advent of Electron-based desktop apps caused MS to simply give up on the space.
I don't have too much experience with MAUI so I can't comment on that.
Blazor's initial bundle sizes made it quite difficult to consider as an option for web applications, despite the ability to share code between frontend and backend.
I still feel like the ASP.NET + Frontend SPA story has a long way to go compared to what is available in the fullstack typescript ecosystem right now. Shared typings between the frontend and backend via tools like tRPC/ oRPC, or full RSC/SSR frameworks like Next and TanStack start are just so much more ergonomic, but the backend TS story, especially in data access and ORMs is so much worse compared to Entity Framework. Prisma is abysmally slow, and Drizzle is getting there but IMO nothing right now compares to the power and DX of EF Core + Linq methods.
Models each have their own, often competing, quirks on how they utilize AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md. It's very likely a CLAUDE.md written for use with Claude Code utilizes prompting techniques that results in worse output if taken directly and used with Codex. For example, Anthropic recommends putting info that an agent must adhere to in statements like "MUST run tests after writing code" and other all-caps directives, whereas people have found using the same language with GPT-5.2 results in less instruction following, more timid responses than if the AGENTS.md were written without them.
In my experience, even a version upgrade of the same model will tend to break many assumptions about its quirks, so most people don't have time to try to optimize for them anyway. This is the wrong technology if you're that concerned about reliability.
I recently watched the Jon Bois documentary "Fool Time" which relates the story of the men involved in the development of telegraph lines to the 90s sitcom Home Improvement. It's an excellent watch.
The schemas for Amazon and Walmart's product information are absolutely bonkers and constantly missing features that they demand be provided.
Here's the XML Schema Definition for "Product" on Amazon [1]
This is joined on each of the linked category schemas included at the type, of which each has unique properties that ultimately drive the metadata on a particular listing for the SKU. Its wrought with inconsistency, duplicated fields, and oftentimes not up-to-date with required information.
Ultimately, this product catalog information gets provided to Amazon, Walmart, Target, and any other large 3rd party marketplace site as a feed file from a vendor to drive what product they can then list pricing and inventory against (through similar feeds).
You are right that the control McMaster-Carr has on their catalog is the strategic and technological advantage.
Very interesting how nearly half the list is (assumedly) every single chemical listed under California Prop 65. Do they really need to specify exactly which chemical it is? I've seen thousands of prop 65 warnings in my life but I've literally never seen it tell me what chemical its warning me about. I just commented to a friends a couple weeks ago i wished they'd tell me what so i could look it up myself!
