https://wiki.futo.org/index.php/Introduction_to_a_Self_Managed_Life:_a_13_hour_%26_28_minute_presentation_by_FUTO_software

Step 1 (gateway drug): Jellyfin

Perfect. Then my third suggestion stands - get it make you a bespoke training module.

Create a project container: upload the source documents already cited by others / ones you find useful. Just 4 or 5.

Add the rule “You are helping me learn ____. You must not provide full refactors unless specifically asked for. Use Socratic method where appropriate”.

Pseudo code what you want to do (hell, draw a flow chart) and ask “based on what I want to do, your background knowledge and the contents of the container, what’s the first thing I need to learn? How should I approach this?”

Then ask “why?”

Hell, get it to make you coding exercises.

After each session, get it to make you a handover note in markdown format. Download it and then add that to your container. (Later on, you can get really fancy and start making your own llm-wiki)

People shit on LLMs as a knee jerk thing… but coding IS a language…and if you understand the logic, the rest is syntax. Also, it’s not as if you’re making some million dollar mission critical thing- you’re teaching yourself through successive approximation.

If you don’t feel comfortable using online models, there are even local alternatives.

I still think JavaScript is the faster way for this, but who knows.

Oh that’s cool! Cheers for that.

Scoping first, code at bottom. Kewl?

Is this a “learn it by coding it” project or is it a “I want this thing to exist, no one has done it, but my code skills aren’t quite there” project?

If the latter, would you consider iterating via llm (as you mention n8n, so I figure you’re in that space anyway) or is this a purely a learn by doing thing?

Come to think of it, there is actually a third option here. You could get the LLM to teach you how to code it by writing some pseudo code and asking it for pointers / starting steps. Claude web is pretty good for that sort of thing, I think. You can get it to tailor its lessons to what you need without the tedium of starting at “Hello World”.

You seem like the sort that could keep that interaction honest and not let it just do everything.

PS: I read about your setup - sounds brilliant. Go you good thing.

PPS: n8n has a Code node (JavaScript), and parsing that weather JSON into a formatted string is probably like 15 lines of code. Something like -

const data = $input.first().json;

return [{ json: { temperature: data.list[0].main.temp } }];

add a Code node after your HTTP request in n8n. Get one single value out first. If you see a temperature number in the output, you win.

Pulling Python in just to parse JSON is probably adding a tool you don’t need for this.

JavaScript may be ass but it’s literally there, so it’s omnipresent ass. :)

Once you’ve got the JSON parsed, turn it into one small HTML weather card.

const data = $input.first().json; const item = data.list[0];

const html = <div> <h3>Weather</h3> <p>Current temperature: ${item.main.temp} °C</p> <p>Feels like: ${item.main.feels_like} °C</p> <p>Humidity: ${item.main.humidity}%</p> <p>Condition: ${item.weather[0].description}</p> </div>;

return [{ json: { html } }];

(Sorry about the formatting ; Lemmy formatting is weird AF)

Anyway, as one journeyman to another, that’s where I’d start poking. ICBW.

Let’s tag it as “provisional” then. As in, once you have my provisional trust, accrued over time, I’ll probably stop auditing every single line. I’ll still look tho.

But the long and short of it is this - XZ utils backdoor actually makes case for trusting clankers more than human collaborators. Clankers are incompetent… they usually aren’t Machiavellian.

I’ve heard it said that an LLM is like a Labrador retriever when it comes to coding. Overly excited, pulls ahead, does some really goofy shit and sometimes chews up your couch (hello Qwen 27B)…but it is trainable.

Human devs are like cats…which is oddly on brand for this project :)

I’d sooner trust a clanker I had prompted with my house style ticket and narrowly sandboxed than a rando online. Of course, the difference is, a rando may eventually earn trust…a clanker doesn’t - but it doesn’t need to if narrowly scoped.

EDIT: here’s a template I use / created for Qwen / Codex. It’s…opinionated and bears scars of prior over eager Labradors. This is usually step 1 I fill out. My fingers are going to shit with O/A , so am trying to minimise scut work.

TICKET-Px-SHORT-DESCRIPTIVE-NAME

Status: PROPOSED Timestamp: DD-MM-YY-HH-MM Priority: P0 | P1 | P2 | P3

Purpose

One paragraph:

• what changes
• what does not
• whether this is proposal / proof / implementation

Why this exists

Describe:

• concrete failure mode
• why current behaviour is wrong
• why this is architectural not cosmetic
• why local patches are rejected

Include: We do not want … We do want …

Proof requirements before implementation

Hard gate.

Before implementation exists, prove:

• seam exists
• ownership is correct
• contract can be enforced
• no god-object expansion
• no hidden coupling

If proof fails: stop and escalate. Do not patch.

Gates

• Step 0 GO/NO GO
• Step 1 GO/NO GO
• Step 2 GO/NO GO
• Step N GO/NO GO

Each gate:

• exact thing being proven
• explicit stop condition

Test Plan

Mix of:

• unit fixtures
• regression replay
• smoke coverage
• edge cases
• negative cases

Prefer: prove behaviour changed, not just coverage increased.

Definition of Success / PASS

Minimum acceptable state.

Must describe:

• observable outcome
• old failure closed
• contract enforced
• ownership preserved

Definition of Success / EXCELLENT

Stretch target.

Usually:

• generalises across adjacent lanes
• demonstrates reuse
• proves contract not logging theatre

Assumptions

State assumptions explicitly.

Examples:

• baseline already proven
• implementation surface bounded
• no broad whitelist/regex fix

Proposed shape

Describe:

• modules
• packets/cards/contracts
• ownership boundaries
• interfaces

Prefer: small typed objects.

Thin leaf intent

If adding logic:

prefer:

• thin leaf
• compact return object
• narrow ownership

Avoid:

• diagnostic fluff
• local maxima

Policy versus signal

Policy: config

Signal: code

Config controls behaviour. Signal detects reality.

Scope

Explicitly include:

• what this ticket covers

Non-goals

Explicitly exclude:

• unrelated cleanup
• opportunistic refactors
• god-object growth
• broad routing changes

Acceptance criteria

Numbered list.

Must be testable.

Definition of done

Agreement on:

• ownership
• interfaces
• config surface
• enforcement point

Only then may implementation tickets follow.

That’s kinda shallow, dude. But you do you.

It’s not like it’s named XxxLovesToSplooge69Xxx or LoliChanFingerBot.

Ironically, with a bit of effort, it’s quite possible to get an LLM to mimic your own house style and replicate it quite well.

You can use it as an editor or hostile reviewer or just bounce ideas off it, as long as you own the process.

Language transformation is literally what they exist for.

But the fact that the article failed to do this and produced generic slop is the actual insult. Not the fact that they used AI.

Like, we get it - portfolio slop / LinkedIn brain / look at me, look at me.

I don’t mind you using AI, but could you at least steer it a bit and do more than minimal effort? Or should I get my ai to talk to your ai?

True…but the arguably better / more defensive stance is “accept no PR unless the user explains wtf it does and/or I personally trust them”.

Iow, stop accepting PRs from randos - clanker or meatbag - full stop. The lowest cognitive load is “none”.

I don’t know you / we can’t have a convo why you sent me this? Into the bin.

(In my humble opinion, for a small or new project, that’s a cleaner footing anyway)

The claude.md file is cute, but I don’t think a claude would actually be tripped up by that.

It’s not such a high bar to pass to be honest with you. You’d probably need something more subtle, at which point you’re just shooting yourself in the foot.

The meow thing is more like a philosophical line in the sand than anything else and I respect it.

But given the way that Codeberg actually blocks crawlers and agents (and how Claude works), it probably doesn’t really do what we think it does.

Disagree with the phrasing myself.

Yes “please ensure …” is nominally more proactive but “be prepared to explain” should force a technical framing in the first place, because the poster in on notice they may be challenged. Don’t write slop, read the room etc. It also explains why the rule exists / what the fail state is.

The first one just sounds like so much corpo HR double speak.

Be bold. Say what you mean - “We talk shop here. Be prepared to put up or shut up, else bonk”.

If the user can justify their question (if/when queried), it doesn’t matter whether the question is hardware, software or other - it will have a grain.

Additionally it might give people an foothold into OPs thinking process / whether they selected the right room in the first place.

My $0.02 and YMMV

I lol’ed (lolcatted?) but isn’t the better solution not to accept PRs from unknown / untrusted sources - ai or human?

Additionally, Codeberg is actively hostile to crawlers and ai agents isn’t it?

Still, this is funny. Not sure Claude would fall for it, but funny anyway.

Can’t be ChatGPT. Not enough goblins. It’s obsessed with goblins of late.

Ditto here. Rule 3 was…unevenly applied.

Funny, I’ve had the exact opposite experience reddit vs lemmy. People are much more supportive here.

Reddit is especially a shithole for that exact use case (sharing tech projects), because (I suspect) pecking order games and performing for imaginary audiences. Between that and the slop…yeah, nah. Fuck Reddit.

YMMV

Yep, I think we have the winner. I’ve just installed it today and I’m actually responding to your post using handy right now. It’s a really great piece of software. Thank you to both of you that recommended this.

Huh. That’s a smart idea (AI federated instance). I imagine Lemmy is too small for it to be on Big AIs radar very much (just yet)

Bemused I guess? At least Anthropic made theirs funny

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ESEyXZrTsc

openwhispr

Second time today that has come up - I better go look. Cheers!

Thank you!

Thanks - that’s worth a gander

Thank you!