True. The Max 20x plan costs just as much as Cursor Ultra. But the latter allows for all models.
Tough call. Probably depends whether I will be more productive with Cursor or OpenCode. Not sure about that. Have to experiment a lot, first.
I think a hard fork is likely in this situation. The result would be two different blockchains: Bitcoin Data (Bitcoin Core) and Bitcoin Money (Bitcoin Knots). Each of them would have a clearly defined role, keeping both of them relatively "pure". A lot of problems would arise from such a split, but it does make sense.
If we wanted everything to be located on a single blockchain, we would probably all end up on Ethereum PoW or something similar.
I hear you. Cursor has one interesting advantage though: If you get the Ultra subscription, you get twice the amount of credits per $, so you go all out on rapid prototyping with premium models.
So, I see myself ending up using a combination of Cursor and Opencode, depending on what I am trying to build during the respective month. After all, paying for Ultra every month feels wasteful.
Just found this old post, and think that it's still relevant.
Do you think the situation on Nostr has changed since back then? Are there any new insights?
nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqx78pgq53vlnzmdr8l3u38eru0n3438lnxqz0mr39wg9e5j0dfq3qqxnzd3c8yunxd3kxycrjvpsmu9zfj
#v4v
Yeah, definitely have to check that out. What's your preferred way of using opencode?
Today I experimented with agentic development with Cursor after purchasing a Pro+ subscription costing $60 US, which pays for $60 US of tokens. The overall experience was relatively good, but checking the usage list made me think again whether Pro+ would suffice for any large project work.
Claude 4.5 Sonnet is really good, but burns $ at a rather rapid pace. For easy tasks, the custom AI agent Composer 1 by Cursor is rather sufficient.
Also, having long-winded sessions seems to push costs upwards due to ever increasing context.
Letting a second agent review what the first agent did and a third agent implement the requested fixes reduced costs to $0.50 for those steps. Compared to the roughly $20 I spent on the actual coding and debugging, that's a bargain. It was just about refactoring a small project to use a different library as dependency.
In the end, I didn't need to check the documentations of those libraries. But I needed to check the output of those agents very closely. They tend to drop functionality, if they feel it's difficult to maintain it!
#ai #dev
This is deeply fascinating! Economics seems to explain even more than just the parts of politics we usually think about. Long read, but really worth it!
nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzpdlddzcx9hntfgfw28749pwpu8sw6rj39rx6jw43rdq4pd276vhuqqgrqc3exqcrqwr9xajk2wphxe3rvkfamuk
Hell yeah, why not? I already just followed you recently!
Wow, finally zapping via Primal (or anywhere on Nostr) via NWC worked for me. The last days I thought I had distributed a dozen zaps or so. I still don't know what the underlying issue was. A combination of creating a new NWC connection, deleting the old one, and opening Primal in a new tab finally did the trick.
I don't know how I should feel about that. My feelings are quite mixed. My general user experience with Nostr has been one of much confusion and frustration. On the other hand, I feel some elation about finally having mastered the basics.
It would have been nice to add the URL to the note directly.
For readers: It's https://syncstr.shakespeare.wtf/
This technology seems quite useful for many applications running on the #nostr network!
nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzq9eemymaerqvwdc25f6ctyuvzx0zt3qld3zp5hf5cmfc2qlrzdh0qyvhwumn8ghj7urjv4kkjatd9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wshsz9thwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjme0qqvxxmm4de6xjmn8946xsefdw4hxxmm4de6xzcnvv5d8ln93
The idea of quantifying trust as threshold amount of money you expect someone to embezzle or not embezzle is quite innovative. But in a pseudonymous context large amounts of trust can only be reasonably established via reputation or personal trust.
While the idea of personal trust and its implications of transitive trust are the subject of web of trust systems, I have been thinking about decentralized reputation system for quite a while - shortly after the emergence of Bitcoin in fact.
I have developed a theoretical reputation system called Quantified Prestige, which is based on quantified esteem attributions. Only rather recently, I realized that Nostr provides a suitable basis for this system in a decentralized context. Those esteem attributions can easily be implemented as custom Nostr messages. It's just aggregation across relays and Sybil protection that require some relatively elaborate mechanisms.
The result is indeed "merely" a reputation score, but as a global starting point for interactions with unknown pseudonymous actors that's certainly a good starting point.
Here is a recent introduction to Quantified Prestige: https://yakihonne.com/article/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqn3rp2esmvczf7md3vmemc2u82mxwjzsttag8scc0g2myhz9cujfqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qq4w4352dj2w3gxunm2g364s6zpwfexjjm6tqt2dsd9
Linking my #introduction article:
It seems to me that articles need to get mentioned in notes to reach significant attention. Anyway, the #nostr learning curve is still quite steep in 2026.
This approach is similar to the ideas I had for Quantified Prestige. In the basic version of that system there are only esteem points to be allocated to others. But I considered adding "special esteem" to the "general esteem", which would allow for rather specific contextual information about the implied reputation.
Here is a recent general introduction of Quantified Prestige: https://yakihonne.com/article/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqn3rp2esmvczf7md3vmemc2u82mxwjzsttag8scc0g2myhz9cujfqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qq4g9t4z4ecv44x2jj9wdm8gnr2xa5x7ure0gd34djq
Test. My first post on Yakihonne.