We still don't have a proper headless CLI for Obsidian, but with the files being Markdown with Bases implemented using YAML Frontmatter, this CLI solves the main thing missing for working with your Obsidian vault on a headless server (for example, with your agent).
Technically correct. We can't call every compulsive behaviour "addiction". Using a social app for 16 hours a day is a very serious problem and requires treatment. But it's not addiction in the same sense that other commonly-recognised addictions to substance and even behaviours are.
I'd call every enjoyment that isn't practiced as a ritual an addiction, and healthy rituals should not take up more than a fraction of the available time.
With 16 hours of daily use (and 8 hours of sleep per day) I wouldn't contrast the batched consumption here on an hours/day-basis, but on a days/year-basis, like going on a trip, a festival etc. Since that basically results in all the days available each year here, it isn't really a practiced ritual anymore, but a complete lifestyle.
Looks very similar. That's good - diversity and more options are good.
But ... as the author and maintainer of Ruler I can tell you that I don't use it and I don't recommend using it (or this new tool).
In almost all cases it isn't necessary anymore - most agents support AGENTS.md (or at least a hack like `@AGENTS.md` in CLAUDE.md), and Agent Skills are the best way to customise agents and are available everywhere now.
There are some corner cases where using a tool like Ruler may still make sense, but if in doubt, you probably don't need it.
Yup with simple AGENTS file and skills, tools like ruler/lnai might be an overkill. However I still think that they are needed for MCPs/Permissions/sub-dir rules/different skills formats.
I would really like all AI agents coding tools to have the same config formats, but I feel like we are not there yet :/
Yes, for MCP servers there's still no good standard. Ruler helps with that. I happen to not use MCPs much, but for a setup that is MCP-heavy that can help.
This is nonsense. Whatever you think about this project, Peter very clearly and very publicly said that he is not interested in any of the crypto stuff and is seriously bothered by it.
There is no "loneliness epidemic". It's a bad journalism epidemic. People in general are a combination of lone and grouping. Both are OK. People don't need to socialise all the time. People who want to socialise but can't usually suffer from emotional difficulties that they haven't addressed. Same for people who obssess about socialising all the time.
I hope Claude adds this too. The "all-you-can-eat" model was never going to work for serious users. You can't really use a tool that might bail out on you in the middle of a session because you've hit some limits.
Codex works much better for long-running tasks that require a lot of planning and deep understanding.
Claude, especially 4.5 Sonnet, is a lot nicer to interact with, so it may be a better choice in cases where you are co-working with the agent. Its output is nicer, it "improvises" really well even if you give it only vague prompts. That's valueable for interactive use.
But for delegating complete tasks, Codex is far better. The benchmarks indicate that, as do most practicioners I talk to (and it is indeed my own experience).
In my own work, I use Codex for complete end-to-end tasks, and Claude Sonnet for interactive sessions. They're actually quite different.
I disagree, Codex always gets stuck and wants to double check and clarify things, its like "dammit just execute the plan and don't tell me until its completely finished"
The output of codex is also not as great. Codex is great at the planning and investigation portion but sucks at execution and code quality.
I've been dealing with this on Codex a lot lately. It confidently wraps up a task, I go to check it's work... and it's not even close.
Then I do a double take and re-read the summary message and realize that it pulled a "and then draw the rest of the owl", seemingly arbitrarily picking and choosing what it felt like doing in that session and what it punted over to "next steps to actually get it running".
Claude is more prone to occasional "cheating" with mocked data or "tbd: make this an actual conditional instead of hardcoded If True" stuff when it gets overwhelmed which is annoying and bad. But it at least has strong task adherence for the user's prompt and doesn't make me write a lawyer-esque contract to avoid any loopholes Codex will use to avoid doing work.
Can / Does Codex actually check docker logs and other things for feedback while iterating on something that isnt working ? That is where the true magic of Claude comes for me. Often things cant be one shot, but being able to iteratively check logs, make an adjustment, rebuild the docker containers, send a curl, and confirm fixed is huge improvement.
Yes, in this regard it's very similar. It works as an agent and does whatever you need it to do to complete the task. In comparison to Claude it tends to plan more and improvise less.
reply