Exactly right. Climbers care a lot about the ethics of an ascent. It’s interesting how much those ethics have changed over the history of the sport.
One of the core ideas is that later climbers should respect or improve upon the style of the first ascensionist. e.g. if a climb was first done using siege tactics, then doing it in a single day is celebrated. But making a climb easier or safer after the fact is much more controversial, because it can feel like changing the nature of the route itself.
Snake Dike is a good example that’s flared up recently in the climbing world. It’s a classic, relatively easy route up Half Dome, and many climbers free solo it. But because it’s a face climb, protection mostly comes from bolts drilled into the rock. The first ascensionist placed very few bolts, which left long runouts and real consequences if you fall.
To many old school climbers, adding bolts to Snake Dike is disrespectful because the risk is part of the route’s character. Their view is basically: don’t bring the mountain down to your level. The new generation of climbers don’t seem to feel that way at all - they think you shouldn’t have to take unnecessary risk to climb a classic route.
I agree with the old school climber's philosophy. It's almost like the old school emphasizes the sense of adventure, and the new school emphasizes the sense of experience via touring (which in my mind are two different things).
I like this - I think you're not too far off of what's popular these days though. I think similar functionality can be achieved by using the "hook" functionality in claude code / codex.
I've been using both on a Rust codebase and have found both work fairly well. Claude code is definitely more capable than Gemini. What difficulties have you had?
The biggest pain point I've had is that both tools will try to guess the API of a crate instead of referencing the documentation. I've tried adding an MCP for this but have had mixed results.
It might be that we have multiple features in our codebase and Gemini seems to struggle understanding that it needs to be aware of #[cfg(feature = "x")] and also that if it's trying to run things, it might need to specify the feature.
And yes, when they guess APIs, it's highly annoying.
Congrats on the launch! This is really cool - one of the applications of LLM I find most compelling. I've seen so many back office processes that have hundreds of steps, are incredibly error prone, and traditionally couldn't be automated due to API limitations. Solutions like Skyvern are going to supercharge businesses that have had historically low margins due to the number of humans required. (Not as a replacement for a human, but as a force multiplier)
The most fascinating part is how tough that work really is. Everyone we've talked to loathes the manual stuff, but until a better solution comes out, you have to allocate X% of your time to it
Only if you require text message based two factor. Password managers like 1Password allow you to store your OTP within them and share that + the password internally within your team
I've set up multiple times a phone-to-Slack proxy for this exact reason. In my case it was a VoIP number, but if that's blocked, Android has many SMS-to-webhook apps and even entry-level industrial LTE routers generally have this feature so you can use a real SIM card.
This is really great. Congrats on shipping it! You might find https://www.lingq.com helpful as a source of inspiration. I think it's a fairly similar concept.
LingQ's killer feature for me is that as you click on words (or phrases - which I find really helpful btw) to translate them, they are added to your vocabulary list. It will automatically create flashcards for you from this list for SRS. Plus when you're reading a new story, words that are in your vocab list are highlighted yellow and new words are highlighted blue.
thank you! I will have a look at LingQ, it does look interesting. Some other people also asked me to add the vocabulary list for Webbu too, so that should be coming soon :).
One of the core ideas is that later climbers should respect or improve upon the style of the first ascensionist. e.g. if a climb was first done using siege tactics, then doing it in a single day is celebrated. But making a climb easier or safer after the fact is much more controversial, because it can feel like changing the nature of the route itself.
Snake Dike is a good example that’s flared up recently in the climbing world. It’s a classic, relatively easy route up Half Dome, and many climbers free solo it. But because it’s a face climb, protection mostly comes from bolts drilled into the rock. The first ascensionist placed very few bolts, which left long runouts and real consequences if you fall.
To many old school climbers, adding bolts to Snake Dike is disrespectful because the risk is part of the route’s character. Their view is basically: don’t bring the mountain down to your level. The new generation of climbers don’t seem to feel that way at all - they think you shouldn’t have to take unnecessary risk to climb a classic route.
https://gripped.com/news/first-ascentionist-pushes-back-on-h...
reply