Summary: train to failure. Duh.

Don't they already have a ton of telemetry from Claude Code itself? I'd be shocked and expect an instant fork if Anthropic telemetry was added to Bun.

Or maybe he's working in a space that is less out of distribution than the work you're doing?

You’re right, I’m not making a nextjs/shadcn/clerk/vercel ai wrapper startup.

I don't remember saying I worked with nextjs, shadcn, clerk (I don't even know what that one is), vercel or even JS/TS so I'm not sure how you can be right but I should know better than to feed the trolls.

There’s a real limit on what level of problem one engineer can fix, regardless of how strong they are. Carmack at Meta is an example of this, but there are many. Woz couldn’t fix Apple’s issues, etc.

A company sufficiently scaled can largely only be fixed by the CEO, and often not even then.

I stated this elsewhere, but at least six years ago a major justification was a better security model. At least that’s what Michael Abrash told me when I asked.

My understanding is that people are working on Fuschia in name only at this point. Of course some people are passionate enough to try and keep it alive, but it’s only useful to the degree that it can help the Android team move faster.

Late 2019 I had a short conversation with Abrash about a new OS for the next set of glasses and my immediate reaction was “why?” He was adamant that there was a security need which Linux could not fill (his big concern was too much surface area for exploits in the context of untrusted 3rd party code). I remember thinking that this would be a surprise to cloud engineers at the big hosters, but chose not to continue the argument. He didn’t get where he is by being dramatically wrong very often, after all, but it still struck me as a waste. Note I did not work at Meta so he may have had stronger justifications he chose not to expose.

MCP is widely adopted. This will work with anything that talks it.

I had the same thought, and while this is a complete guess, it passes my sniff test personally. It’s possible that when this setting is not enabled, those wake events are not coalesced into hourly wakeups, but instead happen arbitrarily throughout the night. That would immediately lead to the behavior described.

Yeah, sounds like it's really poorly labeled, and should instead be more like "Consolidate required maintenance tasks into hourly wake sessions"

That would make it much clearer that enabling it = fewer wakes.

It took me a while and a couple of re-reads to parse out the same conclusion. Basically they're batched instead of happening continuously.

Batching isn't mentioned anywhere. Do you have a positive reason to think this, or is it just the easiest hypothesis (besides a typo) explain what the author wrote?

> "With the setting disabled, the Mac got into a kind of wake-up frenzy, instead of waking up and processing events in batch every hour"

Thanks!

Exactly what the author meant to say.

Way less fun than the ISS, which is like stepping outside on a cold day in comparison. We will have colonies on the moon, Mars, and all the major moons of Jupiter before people are living in the clouds on Venus.

You won't even have colonies underwater, let alone there.