Agents need guardrails, the real question is whether those live in the database or the framework. The 30% to 90% success rate jump from TypeScript types alone suggests the framework layer matters more than the schema layer for AI coding. Smart bet from a team that learned this the hard way scaling on Meteor for a decade.

The "skills not features" contribution model is the most interesting part of this. Instead of a project that grows into another 52-module beast, contributors teach Claude how to transform the codebase per-user. It's basically contributing build instructions instead of build artifacts. If it actually works in practice, it's a genuinely novel approach to keeping small projects small.

The embarrassing part isn't that Microsoft employees prefer Claude Code. It's that Microsoft had every advantag, the OpenAI partnership, the distribution, the enterprise relationships, the $13B investment and still built a product their own engineers don't want to use. That's not a model problem. That's a product taste problem. Anthropic built Claude Code with like 30 engineers. Microsoft has tens of thousands. At some point you have to accept that no amount of investment compensates for not actually understanding what developers need.

Finally, an honest product. Every other browser extension that injects ads into your pages pretends it isn't doing that.

This was less a philosophy and more a competitive jab at Gates' "Open Letter to Hobbyists." Apple bundled BASIC for free because Woz wrote it himself, they had no software costs to recoup. Easy to be generous when your cofounder is the product.

The real divide isn't technical vs. non-technical: it's people with new problems vs. people maintaining old solutions. AI is incredible at generating first drafts of anything. It's terrible at understanding why the existing thing is the way it is.

Regardless of whether the DFU port documentation is technically wrong or the author misdiagnosed the root cause, the real failure here is that macOS silently spent an hour "installing" an update, then rolled back without any actionable error message. No "hey, try a different port." No diagnostic log surfaced to the user. Just a vague "some updates could not be installed" notification with a "Details" button that shows no details. Apple knows which port each device is connected to. Apple knows which port is the DFU port. If there's a known incompatibility with external disk updates on that port, the OS should refuse to start the update with a clear message, not waste an hour of the user's time and silently fail. This is the kind of UX regression that erodes trust in the platform, especially for power users who are exactly the audience booting from external disks.