The "garish" statues are more akin to a false color image of mars that shows topography or something. That they're a visual representation of a particular portion of the pigments found and are not supposed to be an accurate recreation of how the statue looked at the time it was created.
A lot of the comments here feel like they're disappointed that this is a "Docker with unnecessary LLM crap thrown in" when I think what they're really going for is more "LLM workflows with a higher degree of observability and sanity".
I think a more interesting point of comparison is the Claude Code Github Action, Co-Pilot code reviews, etc.
Fantasy series seem like they've gotten longer and longer and it's often years between volumes. Many authors have started doing recaps of their previous books at the start of later volumes, but not all.
I use LLMs for that all the time. Most frontier models have books trained in, so I just ask for a spoiler free recap or ask about certain characters. Works well in my experience, and made jumping back into Wheel of Time a lot easier
Same. Never used worktrees before, but mapping a worktrees to tickets I’m assigned to for Claude to work on is really great.
Heck with the ai, I even have it spin up a dev and test db for that worktree in a docker container. Each has their own so they don’t conflict on that front either. And I won’t lie, I didn’t write those scripts. The models did it all and can make adjustments when I find different work patterns that I like.
This is all to the point of me wondering why I never did this for myself in the past. With the number of times I’m doing multiple parts of a codebase and the annoyance of committing, stashing, checking out different branch and not being able to go more quickly between when blockers are resolved.
What comeback? It’s been there for years and people who have use for them use them (or use git-clone(1) if they are not aware of them). It didn’t fall out of use at any point.
"Comeback" is probably the wrong word, maybe "uptick" in usage?
Worktrees just fit particularly well for the scenario of developing multiple different features in parallel on the same codebase, which is a pattern that devs doing a lot of AI assisted development have.
Consider Google's search results page (setting aside the ads and dark patterns for a moment) as a form of generative UI.
You enter a term, and depending on what you entered, you get a very different UI.
"best sled for toddler" -> search modifiers (wood, under $20, toboggan, etc.), search options, pictures of sleds for sale from different retailers, related products, and reviews.
"what's a toboggan" -> AI overview, Wikipedia summary, People Also Ask section, and a block of short videos on toboggans.
"directions to mt. trashmore" -> customized map of my current location to Mt. Trashmore (my local sledding hill)
Google has spent an immense amount of time and effort identifying the underlying intent behind all kinds of different searches and shows very different "UI" for each in a way makes a very fluid kind of sense to users.
Okay. They all suck. I want a list of websites that are likely to refer to my search query. Google is terrible at understanding my intent and even more terrible at displaying information in such a way as to facilitate my task.
As an example: I was searching for an item to purchase earlier. It's a very particular design; I already know that it's going to send me a bunch of slightly-wrong knockoffs. The first thing I want to see is all of the images that are labeled like my query, as many as possible at once, so that I can pick through them. Instead, it shows me the shopping UI, which fills the screen with pricing and other information for a bunch of things that I'm definitely not going to buy, because they're not what I'm looking for. Old Google would have had the images tab in a predictable place; I'd be on it without even thinking. Now? Yet another frustrating micro-experience with Nu-gle.
I totally agree with this, and I'd go even further.
When I'm having trouble with software, I often turn to Google to figure out how to use it. I'm then directed to a YouTube video, help article, or blog post with instructions.
My take is that people are already accustomed to this question-and-answer model. They're just not used to finding it within the application itself.
reply