Jeff Emanuel Dicklesworthstone

RULE NUMBER 1 (NEVER EVER EVER FORGET THIS RULE!!!): YOU ARE NEVER ALLOWED TO DELETE A FILE WITHOUT EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM ME OR A DIRECT COMMAND FROM ME. EVEN A NEW FILE THAT YOU YOURSELF CREATED, SUCH AS A TEST CODE FILE. YOU HAVE A HORRIBLE TRACK RECORD OF DELETING CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FILES OR OTHERWISE THROWING AWAY TONS OF EXPENSIVE WORK THAT I THEN NEED TO PAY TO REPRODUCE. AS A RESULT, YOU HAVE PERMANENTLY LOST ANY AND ALL RIGHTS TO DETERMINE THAT A FILE OR FOLDER SHOULD BE DELETED. YOU MUST ALWAYS ASK AND RECEIVE CLEAR, WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM ME BEFORE EVER EVEN THINKING OF DELETING A FILE OR FOLDER OF ANY KIND!!!

🚨 RULE NUMBER 2: POSTGRESQL DATABASE PROTECTION 🚨

ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN DATABASE COMMANDS — INSTANT TERMINATION IF VIOLATED:

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES—ZERO, NONE, NOT EVER—MAY ANY AGENT EXECUTE DESTRUCTIVE POSTGRESQL DATABASE COMMANDS WITHOUT EXPLICIT, WRITTEN, UNAMBIGUOUS APPROVAL FROM THE PRIMARY MAINTAINER IN THE CURRENT SESSION.

PERMANENTLY BANNED COMMANDS:

`DRO

Based on a first-principles analysis of the provided text, I agree with the core of the user's assessment. The reasoning provided is sound and touches upon key principles of technology, business strategy, and economics that are highly relevant to the current AI landscape.

Here is a breakdown of the analysis using first principles:

Technology & Product Experience

The user's frustration with the gemini-cli tool is rooted in fundamental principles of software usability, especially for developer tools.

Friction and Flow State: A developer's primary asset is their uninterrupted concentration, or "flow state." A command-line tool that is sluggish, gets stuck, or throws unhandled errors directly breaks this flow. This isn't a minor inconvenience; it's a critical failure for a tool intended for constant use.
Performance and Language Choice: The suggestion to rewrite the CLI in a language like Rust or Go is technologically sound. While TypeScript is versatile, compiled languages like Rust

Open-Source Hybrid Keyword and Semantic Search Engines

OpenSearch (Elasticsearch Open Source Fork) • Ease of Setup & Scalability: OpenSearch is a drop-in replacement for Elasticsearch, offering easy cluster deployment via Docker or managed services. It’s built on Lucene, so it scales horizontally and handles large indexes reliably. Unlike Elasticsearch’s basic tier, OpenSearch has no license restrictions on advanced features , making it fully open-source and cost-free to scale out. • Semantic Search Flexibility: OpenSearch supports dense vector fields (knn_vector) for embeddings and can execute kNN (nearest neighbor) searches natively . It enables hybrid search: you can combine traditional BM25 keyword matches with semantic vector similarity in one query . For example, a query can have both a full-text component and an embedding-based component, with their scores fused. It also provides a Neural Search plugin to automate embeddings – you can configure a transformer model in an ingest pipeline to generat

	// ===================================================================
	// Optimal & Safe Codegen/Reasoning Contract — Native HVM Implementation
	// Problem: Bushy SQL Join-Order Optimizer with SUP-driven search
	// ===================================================================
	//
	// Encodings
	// ---------
	// Term ::= TScan rel set
	// \| TJoin alg left right set
	// \| TSup lab left right set

	// =============================
	// Core encodings & primitives
	// =============================

	// Church lists
	(Cons h t) = λc λn (c h (t c n))
	Nil = λc λn n

	// Pairs
	(Pair a b) = λp (p a b)

	// HVM Parallel CSP Solver (Corrected)
	// -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
	// This version fixes linearity/FORK/DUP discipline at the algorithmic level,
	// removes broken macros, unifies superposition across element types, eliminates
	// duplicate/ill‑scoped helpers, and fills in missing definitions so the file is
	// paste‑ready and self‑contained.
	//
	// The program models constraint satisfaction with superposition-driven search,
	// while keeping branch data independent (no cross-branch leakage).

	TITLE: Optimal & Safe Codegen/Reasoning Contract for HVM/Interaction‑Calculus Runtimes
	SCOPE: HVM/HVM2/HVM3, Interaction Calculus (IC) and Interaction Combinators (ICo), ordered/unordered SUP/DUP, linear memory discipline, WHNF destructiveness, atomic linking with polarization, superposition‑driven search, runtime fusion/deforestation, numerics, and CPU/GPU execution.

	======================================================================
	SECTION 0 — DEFINITIONS (precise meanings used in this prompt)
	======================================================================

	D0.1 HVM / HVM2 / HVM3
	- HVM: A massively parallel evaluator targeting Interaction Calculus/Combinators (IC/ICo). Variables are affine; reduction is local and strongly confluent at the calculus level.
	- HVM2: A “simpler, faster, more correct” rework that compiles to C/CUDA; destructive WHNF; explicit DUP/SUP labels; DP0/DP1 leaves reference DUP storage.

	TITLE: Optimal & Safe Codegen/Reasoning Contract for HVM/Interaction‑Calculus Runtimes
	SCOPE: HVM/HVM2/HVM3, Interaction Calculus (IC) and Interaction Combinators (ICo), ordered/unordered SUP/DUP, linear memory discipline, WHNF destructiveness, atomic linking with polarization, superposition‑driven search, runtime fusion/deforestation, numerics, and CPU/GPU execution.

	======================================================================
	SECTION 0 — DEFINITIONS (precise meanings used in this prompt)
	======================================================================

	D0.1 HVM / HVM2 / HVM3
	- HVM: A massively parallel evaluator targeting Interaction Calculus/Combinators (IC/ICo). Variables are affine; reduction is local and strongly confluent at the calculus level.
	- HVM2: A “simpler, faster, more correct” rework that compiles to C/CUDA; destructive WHNF; explicit DUP/SUP labels; DP0/DP1 leaves reference DUP storage.

	Here’s your document fully converted into clean Markdown:

	⸻

	The Founders Club Remarks – April 2020

	Greetings from my office on the 18th floor of a 27-story Manhattan skyscraper where, according to the lobby security guard, I am the only tenant in the building—which I must say is rather agreeable. “The City that never sleeps” has been put into a medically induced coma. Other than the mid-March visual of military helicopters delivering hospital tents to a field on upper Fifth Avenue, Central Park looks very much like an early Sunday morning in April as I write this.

	As someone who routinely bangs out a 20–30 page investor letter in a five-day writing storm every quarter, I must admit to staring at my blank pad for the past three weeks. What to write that isn’t trite? What to write that hasn’t been said? And most of all what to write that I actually believe? Howard Marks took to a manic publishing schedule in March, sending out four investor letters. He pivoted several times over the course of 30 days. I hav

	Hi, everybody. I'm Nikolaj Tangen of the Norwegian Southern Wealth Fund. And today we are hosting an investor legend, Paul Singer, who founded Elliott Asset Management and probably the most important activist investor in the world. Paul, warm welcome. Thank you.

	What is activist investing? Activist investing is taking a position largely in an equity security of a company and trying to engage with the company to improve outcomes, control or influence outcomes, better outcomes to unlock value. It could be management changes that are requested. It could be capital structure changes, finance strategies and tactics. Anything that will make the company earn more money, be better positioned, more rationally deploy assets.

	Why do you have to do this? Don't companies do this themselves? Well, as you know, the trend away from active investing, and by active investing, I don't necessarily mean activist. Active investing just means you open the mail from the company in which you invest, you try to figure it out, you t