The shift is largely due to the rapid ex­pan­sion of so­lar en­ergy, which is grow­ing faster than any other source of elec­tric­ity. Together, wind and so­lar gen­er­ated 30 per­cent of E. U. power last year, while fos­sil fu­els pro­vided 29 per­cent, ac­cord­ing to the analy­sis from Ember, a think tank based in London. Including hy­dro, re­new­ables pro­vided nearly half of all E.U. power in 2025.

Last year, for the first time, wind and so­lar sup­plied more power than fos­sil fu­els to the E. U., ac­cord­ing to a new analy­sis.

The shift is largely due to the rapid ex­pan­sion of so­lar en­ergy, which is grow­ing faster than any other source of elec­tric­ity. Together, wind and so­lar gen­er­ated 30 per­cent of E. U. power last year, while fos­sil fu­els pro­vided 29 per­cent, ac­cord­ing to the analy­sis from Ember, a think tank based in London. Including hy­dro, re­new­ables pro­vided nearly half of all E.U. power in 2025.

Last year, for the first time, wind and so­lar sup­plied more power than fos­sil fu­els to the E. U., ac­cord­ing to a new analy­sis.

The analy­sis finds that so­lar is mak­ing gains in every E. U. coun­try, while coal is broadly in re­treat. Last year, so­lar alone sup­plied more than 20 per­cent of power in Hungary, Cyprus, Greece, Spain, and the Netherlands. Meanwhile, in 19 European coun­tries, coal ac­counted for less than 5 per­cent of power. In 2025, both Ireland and Finland joined the ranks of European coun­tries that have shut­tered their last re­main­ing coal plants.

Warming, how­ever, con­tin­ues to chal­lenge the shift to clean en­ergy as drought saps hy­dropower. Last year, hy­dro out­put dropped slightly in the E. U., and nat­ural gas power rose to com­pen­sate.

“The next pri­or­ity for the E. U. should be to put a se­ri­ous dent in re­liance on ex­pen­sive, im­ported gas,” said Ember an­a­lyst Beatrice Petrovich. “Gas not only makes the E.U. more vul­ner­a­ble to en­ergy black­mail, it’s also dri­ving up prices.”

In parts of Europe, there are signs that in­creas­ingly cheap bat­ter­ies are be­gin­ning to dis­place nat­ural gas in the early evening, when power de­mand is high, but so­lar out­put is wan­ing. Said Petrovich, “As this trend ac­cel­er­ates it could limit how much gas is needed in evening hours, there­fore sta­bi­liz­ing prices.”

An E. U. Plan to Slash Micropollutants in Wastewater Is Under Attack

Why else would they keep them around for so long?

Why else would they keep them around for so long?

Every bug is dif­fer­ent. But the math is al­ways real.

Think our num­bers are wrong? Edit them your­self.

Users Affected × Frequency × Time Per Incident

How many Apple users hit this bug, how of­ten, and how long they suf­fer each time.

Σ (Workaround Time × Participation Rate)

The ex­tra time spent by peo­ple who try to fix what Apple won’t.

Years Unfixed × Pressure Factor

How long Apple has known about this and how ur­gent the task usu­ally is.

Human Hours Wasted ÷ Engineering Hours to Fix

How many times over Apple could have fixed it with the pro­duc­tiv­ity they’ve de­stroyed.

API Error: 400 {

“error”: {

“type”: “invalid_request_error”,

“message”:“This or­ga­ni­za­tion has been dis­abled.”

One minute I’m a €220/month “Max 20x” AI “power user” (is this even a thing?). The next, I am a dis­abled non-per­son “organization”.

Like a lot of my peers I was us­ing claude code CLI reg­u­larly and try­ing to un­der­stand how far I could go with it on my per­sonal pro­jects. Going wild, with ideas and ap­proaches to code I can now try and val­i­date at a very fast pace. Run it in­side tmux and let it do the work while I went on to do some­thing else.

Until in one of these ses­sions I got pre­sented with that re­sponse.

If you are au­tomat­ing prompts that look like sys­tem in­struc­tions (i.e. scaf­fold­ing con­text files, or us­ing Claude to find er­rors of an­other Claude and it­er­ate on its CLAUDE.md, or etc…), you are walk­ing on a mine­field.

My ac­count was banned! no warn­ing and no feed­back, just that mes­sage say­ing that my re­quest was in­valid be­cause I am a dis­abled or­ga­ni­za­tion.

I was­n’t even do­ing any­thing ground­break­ing, in fact, I was ask­ing it to tune a tool I use to do pro­ject scaf­fold­ing.

Yes you read that right: pro­ject scaf­fold­ing! Probably one of the most bor­ing things you can think of do­ing!

So I asked claude to up­date my scaf­fold­ing tool so that it would in­clude a CLAUDE.md file in there with baked in­struc­tions for a par­tic­u­lar home­made frame­work (cof

bore­DOM cof).

I was play­ing like a “human-in-the-loop” mid­dle­ware for these LLM tools. Like watch­ing one in­stance of Claude try to “boss around” an­other in­stance of it­self, and the plat­for­m’s se­cu­rity guards mis­took it for a riot.

To help un­der­stand this, there are three main char­ac­ters in this story:

* Claude A (an in­stance of claude in a tmux pane)

* Claude B (another in­stance in an­other tmux pane)

The loop was like this:

The dis­abled or­ga­ni­za­tion (me) asked Claude A to up­date the scaf­fold tool

with a cool CLAUDE.md

I went on and started a new pro­ject with the tool, opened a claude in there

(Claude B) and asked for a com­plex task to be done

Whenever Claude B made a mis­take, I would go to Claude A, paste the er­ror,

and say some­thing like “hey, Claude B made this er­ror”

Running two in­stances of claudes, while one up­dated the CLAUDE.md of an­other as it made mis­takes.

The loop re­peated un­til I was told I was a dis­abled or­ga­ni­za­tion.

I just wanted a stan­dard con­text file for new pro­jects.

At one point Claude A got some­what an­noyed with Claude B, and started shout­ting! writ­ting in en-US in­stead of en-GB, that is: ALL CAPS.

I went on to check the file, and it was get­ting lit­tered with these kind of in­struc­tions to make Claude B do some­thing in­stead of what it would try to do.

My guess is that this likely tripped the “Prompt Injection” heuris­tics that the non-dis­abled or­ga­ni­za­tion has.

I would love to see the face of that AI when it saw its own “system prompt” lan­guage be­ing echoed back to it.

Or I don’t know. This is all just a guess from me.

So I went run­ning to read their docs. What was go­ing on here?

Made an ap­peal, which was a link to a google docs form, with a textbox where I tried to con­vince some Claude C in the multi-tril­lion-quadrillion dol­lar non-dis­abled or­ga­ni­za­tion that I was not only a hu­man but also a well-in­tended one.

I got no re­ply. Not even an au­to­matic re­sponse. 0 comms.

So I wrote to their sup­port, this time I wrote the text with the help of an LLM from an­other non-dis­abled or­ga­ni­za­tion.

I got no re­ply. Not even an au­to­matic re­sponse.

And to won­der that peo­ple com­plain about civil ser­vants, eh, wait un­til you have to deal with one of these ex­pen­sive ma­chines!

After a cou­ple of days I got an e-mail:

Yes, the only e-mail I got was a credit note giv­ing my money back.

It’s like they’re say­ing “We don’t want to talk to you any­more, here is some hush money”. But hey guys, it is not a con­ver­sa­tion if it is one-way only, and here I am talk­ing to a wall.

I did­n’t even get to have a “It’s not you, it’s us.” I just got a credit note.

I’m glad this hap­pened with this par­tic­u­lar non-dis­abled-or­ga­ni­za­tion. Because if this by chance had hap­pened with the other non-dis­abled-or­ga­ni­za­tion that also pro­vides such tools… then I would be out of e-mail, pho­tos, doc­u­ments, and phone OS.

AI mod­er­a­tion is cur­rently a “black box” that pri­or­i­tizes safety over ac­cu­racy to an ex­treme de­gree.

If you are au­tomat­ing prompts that look like sys­tem in­struc­tions (i.e. scaf­fold­ing con­text files), you are walk­ing on a mine­field.

I got my €220 back (ouch that’s a lot of money for this kind of ser­vice, thanks cap­i­tal­ism). I have re­framed the whole scaf­fold­ing pro­ject, and re­verted all the code Claude did there.

Soon I will re-re­lease bore­DOM with a new an­gle and ap­proach, with­out the help of Claude. I am try­ing to turn it into a JS frame­work for LLMs (llm first, or even llm only, it now has no API). To pro­duce and it­er­ate on those sin­gle.html files that these tools are now bring­ing to the world.

If you want to take a look at the CLAUDE.md that Claude A was mak­ing Claude B run with, I com­mited it and it is avail­able

here.

Again to wrap this up: this whole post is just my hy­poth­e­sis. Claude was not do­ing any­thing other than it­er­at­ing on this file at the mo­ment I got the ban. And I haven’t heard from them about this any­more (or ever).

“you got to un­der­stand that these or­ga­ni­za­tions have a lot of users…”

Here are a few lines of sum­ma­rized tcp­dump out­put for an ssh ses­sion where I send a sin­gle key­stroke:

$ ./first_lines_of_pcap.sh sin­gle-key.pcap

1 0.000s CLIENT->SERVER 36 bytes

2 0.007s SERVER->CLIENT 564 bytes

3 0.015s CLIENT->SERVER 0 bytes

4 0.015s CLIENT->SERVER 36 bytes

5 0.015s SERVER->CLIENT 36 bytes

6 0.026s CLIENT->SERVER 0 bytes

7 0.036s CLIENT->SERVER 36 bytes

8 0.036s SERVER->CLIENT 36 bytes

9 0.046s CLIENT->SERVER 0 bytes

10 0.059s CLIENT->SERVER 36 bytes

I said a “few” be­cause there are a lot of these lines.

$ ./summarize_pcap.sh sin­gle-key.pcap

Total pack­ets: 270

36-byte msgs: 179 pack­ets ( 66.3%) 6444 bytes

Other data: 1 packet ( 0.4%) 564 bytes

TCP ACKs: 90 pack­ets ( 33.3%)

Data sent: 6444 bytes in 36-byte mes­sages, 564 bytes in other data

Ratio: 11.4x more data in 36-byte mes­sages than other data

Data packet rate: ~90 pack­ets/​sec­ond (avg 11.1 ms be­tween data pack­ets)

That is a lot of pack­ets for one key­press. What’s go­ing on here? Why do I care?

I am work­ing on a high-per­for­mance game that runs over ssh. The TUI for the game is cre­ated in bub­bletea 1 and sent over ssh via wish.

The game is played in an 80x60 win­dow that I up­date 10 times a sec­ond. I’m tar­get­ing at least 2,000 con­cur­rent play­ers, which means up­dat­ing ~100 mil­lion cells a sec­ond. I care about per­for­mance.

So I have a script that con­nects a few hun­dred bots over ssh and has them make a move a sec­ond. Then I use go’s out­stand­ing pro­fil­ing tools to look at what’s go­ing on.

Yesterday I in­ad­ver­tently broke my test har­ness. Instead of reg­u­larly send­ing game data, my server sent the bots a sin­gle mes­sage that said “your screen is too small.” This cut my game’s CPU and band­width us­age in half.

At first I was dis­ap­pointed. I (briefly) thought I had a free mas­sive speedup on my hands, but it was ac­tu­ally a test­ing er­ror.

If I was­n’t send­ing game data back to my bots, why did CPU us­age drop by 50% in­stead of 100%?

As part of de­bug­ging the test har­ness is­sue, I used tcp­dump to log game traf­fic with and with­out the break­ing change. Something like:

# The game runs on port 22

time­out 30s tcp­dump -i eth0 ‘port 22’ -w with-break­ing-change.pcap

# Revert change

time­out 30s tcp­dump -i eth0 ‘port 22’ -w with­out-break­ing-change.pcap

Our break­ing change stopped us from ren­der­ing our game over ssh. So with-break­ing-change.pcap con­tains pack­ets that rep­re­sent the over­head of each con­nec­tion with­out ac­tu­ally ren­der­ing the game.

I was de­bug­ging this with Claude Code, so I asked it to sum­ma­rize what it saw in the pcap.

Wanna take a look your­self? I put with-break­ing-change.pcap in this di­rec­tory

Wow! Here’s what I found:

Packet Size Distribution (413,703 to­tal pack­ets):

274,907 pack­ets (66%): Exactly 36 bytes

138,778 pack­ets (34%): 0 bytes (TCP ACKs)

18 pack­ets (

Further analy­sis on a smaller pcap pointed to these mys­te­ri­ous pack­ets ar­riv­ing ~20ms apart.

This was baf­fling to me (and to Claude Code). We kicked around sev­eral ideas like:

* Some quirk of bub­bletea or wish

One thing stood out - these ex­changes were ini­ti­ated by my ssh client (stock ssh in­stalled on MacOS) - not by my server.

On a hunch, I took a tcp­dump of a reg­u­lar ssh ses­sion.

# on my mac, in one tab

sudo tcp­dump -ien0 ‘port 22’

# on my mac, in an­other tab

ssh $some_vm_of_mine

I waited for the ini­tial con­nec­tion chat­ter to die down, sent one key­stroke to my re­mote vm, and looked at the tcp­dump out­put.

I saw the ex­act same pat­tern! What in the world?

Once I re­al­ized that this was a prop­erty of stock ssh and not my game, de­bug­ging got a lot eas­ier.

Running ssh -vvv gave me a pretty good sense of what was go­ing on:

de­bug3: ob­fus­cate_key­stroke_­tim­ing: start­ing: in­ter­val ~20ms

de­bug3: ob­fus­cate_key­stroke_­tim­ing: stop­ping: chaff time ex­pired (49 chaff pack­ets sent)

de­bug3: ob­fus­cate_key­stroke_­tim­ing: start­ing: in­ter­val ~20ms

de­bug3: ob­fus­cate_key­stroke_­tim­ing: stop­ping: chaff time ex­pired (101 chaff pack­ets sent)

That 20ms is a smok­ing gun - it lines up per­fectly with the mys­te­ri­ous pat­tern we saw ear­lier! And the rest of the mes­sage is pretty help­ful too - we sent 49 “chaff” pack­ets for the first key­stroke and 101 “chaff” for around the sec­ond one.

In 2023, ssh added key­stroke tim­ing ob­fus­ca­tion. The idea is that the speed at which you type dif­fer­ent let­ters be­trays some in­for­ma­tion about which let­ters you’re typ­ing. So ssh sends lots of “chaff” pack­ets along with your key­strokes to make it hard for an at­tacker to de­ter­mine when you’re ac­tu­ally en­ter­ing keys.

That makes a lot of sense for reg­u­lar ssh ses­sions, where pri­vacy is crit­i­cal. But it’s a lot of over­head for an open-to-the-whole-in­ter­net game where la­tency is crit­i­cal.

Keystroke ob­fus­ca­tion can be dis­abled client-side. After re­vert­ing my orig­i­nal break­ing change, I tried up­dat­ing my test har­ness to pass ObscureKeystrokeTiming=no when start­ing up ssh ses­sions.

This worked great. CPU us­age dropped dra­mat­i­cally and bots still re­ceived valid data.

But this is hardly a so­lu­tion in the real world. I want ssh mygame to Just Work with­out ask­ing users to pass op­tions that they might not un­der­stand.

Claude Code orig­i­nally did­n’t have much faith that we could dis­able this func­tion­al­ity server-side.

Fortunately, the de­scrip­tion I found of SSH key­stroke ob­fus­ca­tion made it easy to look up the rel­e­vant code in go’s ssh li­brary (which I was tran­si­tively de­pend­ing on).

Log mes­sage:

Introduce a trans­port-level ping fa­cil­ity

This adds a pair of SSH trans­port pro­to­col mes­sages SSH2_MSG_PING/PONG

to im­ple­ment a ping ca­pa­bil­ity. These mes­sages use num­bers in the “local

ex­ten­sions” num­ber space and are ad­ver­tised us­ing a “[email protected]”

ext-info mes­sage with a string ver­sion num­ber of “0”.

The “chaff” mes­sages that ssh uses to ob­scure key­strokes are SSH2_MSG_PING mes­sages. And they’re sent to servers that ad­ver­tise the avail­abil­ity of the [email protected] ex­ten­sion. What if we just…don’t ad­ver­tise [email protected]?

I searched go’s ssh li­brary for [email protected] and found the com­mit where sup­port was added. The com­mit was tiny and seemed very easy to re­vert.

I cloned the go crypto repo and told Claude to re­vert this change and up­date our de­pen­den­cies to use our clone (go’s re­place di­rec­tive makes fork­ing a li­brary very easy).

Then I re-ran my test har­ness. The re­sults were…very good:

Total CPU 29.90% -> 11.64%

Syscalls 3.10s -> 0.66s

Crypto 1.6s -> 0.11s

Bandwidth ~6.5 Mbit/sec -> ~3 Mbit/sec

Obviously fork­ing go’s crypto li­brary is a lit­tle scary, and I’m gonna have to do some think­ing about how to main­tain my lit­tle patch in a safe way.

But this is a huge im­prove­ment. I’ve spent much of the last week squeez­ing out small sin­gle-digit per­for­mance wins. A >50% drop was unimag­in­able to me.

I’ve been think­ing about whether LLMs re­move parts of the prob­lem-solv­ing process that I en­joy. But I’ve gotta say, de­bug­ging this prob­lem us­ing Claude Code was su­per fun.

I am fa­mil­iar enough with tcp­dump, tshark, and friends to know what they can do. But I don’t use them reg­u­larly enough to be fast with them. Being able to tell an agent “here’s a weird pcap - tell me what’s go­ing on” was re­ally lovely. And by watch­ing com­mands as the agent ran them I was able to keep my men­tal model of the prob­lem up to date.

There were still edge cases. At some point in my con­fu­sion I switched to ChatGPT and it very con­fi­dently told me that my tcp­dump out­put was nor­mal ssh be­hav­ior:

And then dou­bled down when I pushed back:

Similarly, I had to push Claude Code to con­sider fork­ing go’s ssh li­brary. And I had to make the orig­i­nal leap of “wait…if our test har­ness was bro­ken, why was us­age not 0%?”

When you say “LLMs did not fully solve this prob­lem” some peo­ple tend to re­spond with “you’re hold­ing it wrong!”

I think they’re some­times right! Interacting with LLMs is a new skill, and it feels pretty weird if you’re used to writ­ing soft­ware like it’s 2020. A more tal­ented user of LLMs may have triv­ially solved this prob­lem.

But the best way to de­velop a skill is by prac­tic­ing it. And for me, that means fig­ur­ing out how to trans­fer my prob­lem-solv­ing in­tu­itions to the tools that I’m us­ing.

Besides. Being in the loop is fun. How else would I write this post?

In 2000, Douglas Adams made an in­ter­est­ing ob­ser­va­tion that I keep re­turn­ing to.

A user on Slashdot named “FascDot Killed My Pr” had asked the fol­low­ing ques­tion (where HGttG = Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy):

First, a big thank-you. You’ve made a last­ing con­tri­bu­tion to “our” cul­ture (or should that be “culture”?)

I first read HGttG in my early teens. I dou­bled over laugh­ing the whole time. I read and reread the en­tire se­ries, bought both Dirk Gently books AND Last Chance to See. Loved them all and would­n’t trade hav­ing read them for any­thing. (btw, the first men­tal ward scene in Long Dark Teatime is a no-foolin’, all-time clas­sic.)

However, a few years ago I was talk­ing to a (then) class­mate. Very smart, phi­los­o­phy-ma­jor type. He said (paraphrased) “I thought that HGttG was de­press­ing. Such ni­hilism.” At the time I thought “Hmmm…I did­n’t SEE a black beret on his head….”. But every read­ing of the se­ries since then his com­ment has struck me as more true–es­pe­cially in the case of Arthur Dent. In fact, far from be­ing funny, I now find Dent’s char­ac­ter de­press­ing–he’s not just a loser, he lit­er­ally has no con­trol over his life at all (except in So Long for a while). And the con­trol he does have does him no good (e.g. Earth is de­stroyed while he’s try­ing to save his house.)

So my ques­tion is: When you were writ­ing these books did you feel you were be­ing gaily whim­si­cal or did you in­stead feel frus­trated and cyn­i­cal?

I sus­pect there is a cul­tural di­vide at work here. In England our he­roes tend to be char­ac­ters who ei­ther have, or come to re­alise that they have, no con­trol over their lives what­so­ever — Pilgrim, Gulliver, Hamlet, Paul Pennyfeather (from Decline and Fall), Tony Last (from A Handful of Dust). We cel­e­brate our de­feats and our with­drawals — the Battle of Hastings, Dunkirk, al­most any given test match. There was a won­der­ful book pub­lished, oh, about twenty years ago I think, by Stephen Pile called the Book of Heroic Failures. It was stag­ger­ingly huge best­seller in England and sank with heroic lack of trace in the U. S. Stephen ex­plained this to me by say­ing that you can­not make jokes about fail­ure in the States. It’s like can­cer, it just is­n’t funny at any level. In England, though, for some rea­son it’s the thing we love most. So Arthur may not seem like much of a hero to Americans — he does­n’t have any stock op­tions, he does­n’t have any­thing to ex­change high fives about round the wa­ter-cooler. But to the English, he is a hero. Terrible things hap­pen to him, he com­plains about it a bit quite ar­tic­u­lately, so we can re­ally feel it along with him - then calms down and has a cup of tea. My kind of guy!

I’ve hit a cer­tain amount of dif­fi­culty over the years in ex­plain­ing this in Hollywood. I’m of­ten asked ‘Yes, but what are his goals?’ to which I can only re­spond, well, I think he’d just like all this to stop, re­ally. It’s been a hard sell. I rather miss David Vogel from the film process. He’s the stu­dio ex­ec­u­tive at Disney who was in charge of the pro­ject for a while, but has since de­parted. There was a big meet­ing at one time to dis­cuss, amongst other things, Arthur’s hero­ic­ness or lack of it. David sud­denly asked me ‘Does Arthur’s pres­ence in the pro­ceed­ings make a dif­fer­ence to the way things turn out?’ to which I said, slightly puz­zled, ‘Well, yes.’ David smiled and said ‘Good. Then he’s a hero.’

In the cur­rent, lat­est ver­sion of the screen­play, I think that Arthur’s non-heroic hero­ism is now ab­solutely pre­served, and I’m pleased with the way he works out.

I think I have more to say about this, and will try to come back and add more here, but mean­while a few things at ran­dom:

As a mat­ter of fact, I have read The Book of Heroic Failures (1979) with great en­joy­ment. (Post from 2011 — I only wrote four sen­tences of my own, but one of them was “Too many books have been writ­ten in praise of com­pe­tence; this book pro­vides an an­ti­dote by cel­e­brat­ing fail­ure as only a British au­thor can.”)

I think he is right that this goes over bet­ter (generally speak­ing) in England than in the USA. Of course one can make jokes mock­ing fail­ure, but some­one who fails does not au­to­mat­i­cally be­come en­dear­ing (in a kind of every­man way) in America the way they would in England. It seems to me that Americans are more likely to feel ei­ther con­tempt or pity than to feel kin­ship: or at any rate, they re­gard the fail­ure as a set­back or in­ter­est­ing cir­cum­stance, rather than the nat­ural/​de­fault state of the world. (As some­one who is nei­ther American nor English, I am of course not some­one whose opin­ions you should pay any heed to.)

* As we live our lives, are we merely vic­tims sub­ject to winds of chance and ex­ter­nal cir­cum­stance, or are we pow­er­ful agents fash­ion­ing our own sto­ries, mak­ing our own luck? Obviously the an­swer is “both”, but per­haps the most dis­tinc­tively American trait is to lean more to­wards the lat­ter.

I pay for a lot of small apps. One of them was Wispr Flow for dic­ta­tion. That’s $14 CAD/month that I was pay­ing un­til I had a few lazy days vis­it­ing my mother. And then on the af­ter­noon of New Year’s Day, I vibecoded Jabber.

Now, don’t get me wrong, Jabber is not “production qual­ity.” I would never sell it as a prod­uct or even rec­om­mend it to other peo­ple, but it does what I needed from Wispr Flow, and it does ex­actly the way I want it to. For free.

At work, I’m of­ten asked to make small videos show­ing some sup­port agent how some­thing works, or shar­ing some knowl­edge with new team mem­bers, or just a reg­u­lar demo of some­thing. In the past, I used to use Loom, which costs $15/month. So af­ter cre­at­ing Jabber, I got ex­cited and vibecoded Reel.

Reel does ex­actly what I wanted Loom to do: I can record my cam­era, I can move it around, and I get to trim the video af­ter it’s done (I don’t re­mem­ber be­ing able to do that with Loom).

Then just yes­ter­day, a friend of mine was telling me how he got tired of pay­ing for Typora and de­cided to vibecode his own Markdown ed­i­tor. And that gave me the idea of cre­at­ing an ed­i­tor for my blog.

That’s Hugora! Yes, hor­ri­ble name, but who cares? It’s just for me. I get to edit my Hugo blog just the way I like. It even shows my site theme.

You see the pat­tern here?

All of these $10/month apps are sud­denly a week­end pro­ject for me. I’m an en­gi­neer, but I have never writ­ten a sin­gle ma­cOS ap­pli­ca­tion. I’ve never even read Swift code in my life, and yet, I now can get an app up and run­ning in a cou­ple of hours. This is crazy.

Most stand­alone apps will be “features, not prod­ucts” in the long run — easy to copy and bun­dle into larger of­fer­ings.

And I think we’re there. I don’t know what that means for the fu­ture of our in­dus­try, but it does seem like a big shift.

I’m still skep­ti­cal of vibecod­ing in gen­eral. As I men­tioned above, I would not trust my vibecod­ing enough to make these into prod­ucts. If some­thing goes wrong, I don’t know how to fix it. Maybe my LLM friends can, but I don’t know. But vibecod­ing is 100% vi­able for per­sonal stuff like this: we now have apps on de­mand.

Currently, Gemini CLI re­stricts IDE in­te­gra­tion fea­tures to en­vi­ron­ments where TERM_PROGRAM is vs­code (or other hard­coded val­ues). This forces 3rd-party in­te­gra­tions like jet­brains-ide-com­pan­ion to mock VS Code by spoof­ing en­vi­ron­ment vari­ables to en­able core fea­tures, oth­er­wise it could not be dis­cov­ered by Gemini CLI.

For some rea­son, the process de­tec­tion is not work­ing prop­erly on win­dows/​linux (, re­ported by users here JetBrains Plugin Review and here #9273 , and a few other bug re­port email i’ve re­ceived), which mak­ing this na­tive IDE de­tec­tion logic a MUST do for gem­ini-cli dis­cover and con­nect to IDE via en­vi­ron­men­tal vari­ables in­stead of port info file.

This PR adds JetBrains IDE Series to the IDE_DEFINITIONS and up­dates the de­tec­tion logic to rec­og­nize TERMINAL_EMULATOR=JetBrains-JediTerm as a first-class sup­ported en­vi­ron­ment.