I have a smaller version of this and it's pretty good as a display.

I'm somewhat disappointed with it as a hub/KVM. It's better than having to swap cables, but just barely. It can't handle any high bandwidth USB devices I've tried (Focusrite Scarlett 2i2, a DSLR via capture card DSLR and a Logitech webcam). The downstream USB strangely isn't even sending down a keyboard and mouse to a PC, I ended up having to get separate dedicated KVM for those. It worked fine with a Thunderbolt to my Macs, but that's not surprising. I'm not sure how it would work with two Macs (one would have to be HDMI or DisplayPort and use that downstream USB port). I could try that but it's not my use case.

Yeah… Not sure of your model (I have the U4025QW), but mine is so close to perfect as a KVM between a Mac and 2 PC’s, if only the KVM had one more USB output port.

It takes 3 video inputs, but only 1 dedicated USB output. But oh, one of the video inputs is really Thunderbolt, so you get USB over the same cable and it works… but only if your machine supports this (for many laptops this is fine.)

But that’s 2 machines max in the KVM, while the monitor has 3 selectable inputs…

It would have been nicer if they could’ve added one more USB output, so you could have KVM match the display input for 3 machines with a single toggle.

(I have a Mac, a work desktop, and a gaming desktop, and I can toggle between the Mac (thunderbolt) and one of the PC’s, and the kvm input will follow the display’s. But I have to pick which PC I want to plug the downstream USB cable into… so I bought a little $15 USB A/B switch to help. So Mac keyboard always works, but when switching between gaming PC (hdmi) and work PC (DP) I just have to remember to toggle the A/B switch along with it to make the keyboard go to the right host.)

Summary: train to failure. Duh.

Don't they already have a ton of telemetry from Claude Code itself? I'd be shocked and expect an instant fork if Anthropic telemetry was added to Bun.

Or maybe he's working in a space that is less out of distribution than the work you're doing?

You’re right, I’m not making a nextjs/shadcn/clerk/vercel ai wrapper startup.

I don't remember saying I worked with nextjs, shadcn, clerk (I don't even know what that one is), vercel or even JS/TS so I'm not sure how you can be right but I should know better than to feed the trolls.

There’s a real limit on what level of problem one engineer can fix, regardless of how strong they are. Carmack at Meta is an example of this, but there are many. Woz couldn’t fix Apple’s issues, etc.

A company sufficiently scaled can largely only be fixed by the CEO, and often not even then.

I stated this elsewhere, but at least six years ago a major justification was a better security model. At least that’s what Michael Abrash told me when I asked.

My understanding is that people are working on Fuschia in name only at this point. Of course some people are passionate enough to try and keep it alive, but it’s only useful to the degree that it can help the Android team move faster.

Late 2019 I had a short conversation with Abrash about a new OS for the next set of glasses and my immediate reaction was “why?” He was adamant that there was a security need which Linux could not fill (his big concern was too much surface area for exploits in the context of untrusted 3rd party code). I remember thinking that this would be a surprise to cloud engineers at the big hosters, but chose not to continue the argument. He didn’t get where he is by being dramatically wrong very often, after all, but it still struck me as a waste. Note I did not work at Meta so he may have had stronger justifications he chose not to expose.

MCP is widely adopted. This will work with anything that talks it.

I had the same thought, and while this is a complete guess, it passes my sniff test personally. It’s possible that when this setting is not enabled, those wake events are not coalesced into hourly wakeups, but instead happen arbitrarily throughout the night. That would immediately lead to the behavior described.

Yeah, sounds like it's really poorly labeled, and should instead be more like "Consolidate required maintenance tasks into hourly wake sessions"

That would make it much clearer that enabling it = fewer wakes.

It took me a while and a couple of re-reads to parse out the same conclusion. Basically they're batched instead of happening continuously.

Batching isn't mentioned anywhere. Do you have a positive reason to think this, or is it just the easiest hypothesis (besides a typo) explain what the author wrote?

> "With the setting disabled, the Mac got into a kind of wake-up frenzy, instead of waking up and processing events in batch every hour"

Thanks!

Exactly what the author meant to say.