Thank you for this work! I had tried Obsidian every year or so and the performance switching/opening notes drove me crazy in the past. I like it to feel instant and I'm more sensitive to UI performance than others. Just tried again, and it passes the threshold for me!

You haven’t seen toxic work culture until you’ve seen a co-op reduce its size (or rather, tighten the circle of distributions.)

Senior engineers must become more comfortable giving quick, broad feedback that matches the minimal time put into the PR. "This doesn't fit how the system works; please research and write a more detailed prompt and redo this" is the advice they need. It feels taboo to do it to a significant diff, but diff size no longer has much correlation to thought or effort in these situations.

I believe most franchises originally started recording something like “will you be using your mobile app today?” because of the corporate promo where you’d get something for free if they didn’t mention the app.

W.Aus. maybe? As many characters as Aussie. I didn’t have a problem finding out it was WA from the article, though.

Looks nice! You have a good foundation in modal input order. How’s your file indexing and search compared to Alfred’s? RayCast struggles with this. Alfred’s is solid, especially stands out with `in` search.

Custom search query strings/results is important, too. I couldn’t tell how you support that from the marketing site.

Love that you're calling it a "marketing site" Indexing is meant to be as fast as possible. It's good enough for my needs. You can add custom folders and/or their contents to the global index. Which I think would be the equivalent of "in" search?

Sorry, marketing site is reflexive use on my part. Not meant as a putdown in any way. :)

Alfred has three main search prefixes, find, open and in. Find does titles, in does in-document search. It's pretty fast and live-updates as you type. Find/open is the weird part relative to Tuna, as you'd rather decide which action to take after filtering down search results.

Anyway, now that I'm on my Mac, I was able to compare them. Alfred's search seems to be several times faster than Tuna's search (based on when Tuna shows the UI with search results.)

Tuna also chokes on adding too many folders to search; the settings pane beachballs and the app can't be used, even after force quitting and restarted. If that's due to heavy indexing, maybe that could be decoupled from the UI so it could search the partial index in the meantime. Or back the user out of folder depth they selected if it's not going to perform.

Tuna also has some of the same missing items that Raycast has, that Alfred finds; I know Alfred also makes use of Spotlight's index, but they do something in addition to that.

The index isn't for all the files. Of course, if one adds all the files anyway the experience should be better than what you describe.

There's a "Spotlight search" action that open a Finder window with the search query. I think that's how it'll work for now re: spotlight

Sorry, I think I've offended you. Just got excited; this is a favorite software category of mine.

Not at all! Current implementation is too easy to use "wrong". Index isn't really built for large trees. Working on a different take on it

You’re defining a hustler as someone who can’t manage a small company or who is unwilling to do extroverted or operational tasks. I don’t think that’s helpful because there are plenty of hustlers oriented around those tasks, who now also can advance the software side and a lot of the paperwork with a smaller team, perhaps even with a semi-technical team or cofounder. The existence of these people means that to me, a person comfortable with thorny operations, marketing, and compliance issues, the existence of lazy vibe coders don’t affect my estimate of profitability of a medical device startup.

What is the bare minimum they are seeking? It seems like advocates would give varying answers depending on their technical ability.

They're pretty up front about the fact that the final result is going to have be some sort of compromise.

Based on the words of the most involved proponents of the movement have said, the absolute least they could be forced into accepting would be "Developers can't sue people hosting reverse engineered servers after the main game has gone offline". Which is trivial to comply with (just don't sue someone), but probably insufficient for living up to the main messaging of the movement (since there's a lot more games that people care about preserving than games people care enough about preserving to completely re-implement servers for).

Slightly more reasonably, there's the pitch of "release your server binaries". As the market stands at the moment, that'd be difficult, because in large studios it's common to have all sorts of licensed software involved in hosting your backend, but it's the kind of thing that's pretty trivially responded to on new projects: companies selling software for game service backends would have to adjust their licenses in response to their customers' legal requirements, but that's far from impossible given all the licensed code that's running on client machines already.

In the best possible world, consumers would get access to the source code of the entire project after the company is done making money on it, but everyone involved seems to think that's a pipe dream.

It’s a nice sentiment (librarianship runs in my family) but there are still issues with accessibility for library institutional subscriptions, compared to easily shared links. Relying on institutional subscriptions for revenue isn’t enough for the publishers and journalists. It’s also hard to target donations towards certain parts of the collection; at most libraries almost none of your donation would go towards periodicals.

None of these problems are unsolvable, but typical libraries would need to significantly change their focus and invest in new shared technology first.

I do recommend contacting circulation, reference or technology direction to share your desire to see the library play a larger role in making journalism accessible to the community.

The gist is the OP went nuts replacing Google and Meta with self-hosted tools, and now he's feeding more data than ever into Anthropic or OpenAI (didn't specify, or I missed it. Skimming AI-generated blog posts tires the eyes.)

That's par for the course, honestly. News-cycle-driven anti-big-tech sentiment is weak fuel for a lifelong commitment. Something new was going to come along.

I am always happy for anyone who felt stuck on their side projects and no longer does, though.

To be fair, OP talks specifically about that -- that's a full quarter of the post:

> I’ve spent the past year moving away from surveillance platforms... And yet I willingly feed more context into AI tools each day than Google ever passively collected from me. It’s a contradiction I haven’t resolved. The productivity gains are real enough that I’m not willing to give them up, but the privacy cost is real too, and I notice it.

Yes, it's glib, though (and just a generated thought.) No real reflection on what sent them down the privacy tools route in the first place.

This paragraph made me laugh out loud:

>I’ve settled into an uneasy position: AI for work where the productivity gain justifies the privacy cost, strict boundaries everywhere else. It’s not philosophically clean. It’s just honest.