Jai is not written by ai, but only its website is. It's written by a Stanford Computer-Science professor with decades of C++ and Unix/linux experience.
> [1]: Was jai written by an AI coding agent?
No. While this web site was obviously made by an LLM (ChatGPT read the man page, asked some follow-up questions, and produced a prompt from which claude code built a vitepress site), jai itself was hand implemented by a Stanford computer science professor with decades of C++ and Unix/linux experience. As an experiment, the author did previously try vibe-coding a container, but the results were disastrous and repeatedly put his machine in a state that required a reboot (e.g., recursively changing the attributes of all mounts in the wrong mount namespace). The author does use coding agents to look for bugs, get feedback, and develop tests. However, rest assured that a single human understands every line of C++ in jai.
As a jai and linux user, myself, looking at nono's os-sandbox (from here [1]) it seems nice too. Thanks for the recommend I was looking for something that might be nice on Mac and nono seems good to recommend to coworkers and the like.
I've been using jai [1] for sandboxing on linux (although I use opencode and local models and not claude code) and I'm pretty satisfied with it. It comes in three different modes [2]: casual mode, strict mode, and bare mode. Here's some descriptions of each mode:
Casual mode [3]:
> Your home directory is mounted as a copy-on-write overlay. The jailed process sees your real files, but writes go to $HOME/.jai/default.changes instead of modifying originals, except in the directory where you ran jai.
Your current working directory grants full read/write access to code in the jail (unless suppressed with -D). So files deleted there are really gone.
/tmp and /var/tmp are private.
The rest of the filesystem is read-only.
Strict mode [4]:
> The process runs as the unprivileged jai system user, not as you.
Home directory is an empty private directory at $HOME/.jai/<name>.home.
Granted directories (via -d or cwd) are exposed with id-mapped mounts — files look like they are owned by jai inside the jail.
Because the process has a different UID, it cannot read files outside your home directory that are only accessible to your user — this is where confidentiality comes from.
Bare mode [5]:
> Home directory is an empty private directory, like strict mode.
But the process runs as your user, not as jai.
This means it cannot provide confidentiality — the process can still read any file accessible to your UID outside the home directory.
I've always ran my stuff in casual so far just so my whole computer doesn't get rimraffed :P. but I'm thinking of switching to just strict mode, but haven't really vibe coded in a while so I haven't tried it yet.
I've been using VIM/NVIM on and off for a while and the one thing that made it stick for me over VSCode was LazyVim [1]. If you're missing out on something IDE like VSCode, but you love vim it's a great way to go (it can take some getting used to so hang in there). EDIT LazyVim is based off nvim by the way. If your more into videos to learn about something this is a good intro to it from Elijah Manor [2]. I have my dotfiles stored on github that I use on my different machines, and use gnu `stow` and `make` to build them and that gives me my specific lazyvim setup free and quickly after just downloading a few dependencies.
I haven't used Firefox in a bit, but I thought their devtools were pretty good, but last time I used it I used their developer edition browser [1]. I think the devtools were particularly bad when you used to have to install Firebug as a seperate part of the browser which is no longer the case [2]. For a quick view of what the developer tools currently look like you can see here [3]
My sister went to an allergist and found out she is allergic to corn/HFCS as well with similar symptoms as you (hives, vomit inducing). Corn and HFCS are in almost literally everything, so it's a really hard allergy for her to have. You say now you eat it for breakfast? What do you mean by that? Are you over your allergy and what has worked for you if so? If you could give someone going through something similar advice what would you say?
Disclaimer: I'm not an allergist or nutritionist, I only know my personal experience.
I would consider myself over my allergy. I'd say it lasted seven years, gradually diminishing in severity over time.
For the first couple years following the diagnosis my parents had me eating spelt, kamut, quinoa and all that. Alternative recipe books, bag lunch, Martin's potato bread, health food store, no vending machines, no trick or treat candy, and we checked the ingredients on every box. But like you said, HFCS is practically unavoidable. My parents made some judgment calls— they checked my reaction to corn starch and plain old corn, and I had none. The alternative grains went away, we were just ingredient checking and keeping my corn intake relatively low. Five years in, I was eating the same stuff other kids ate as long as it wasn't sugary like pancake syrup or a cinnamon bun. Then after puberty corn syrup was the bad grade scapegoat and nothing more.
Nowadays I will demolish a bowl of Honey Comb cereal— basically corn flour hexagons. I read the nutrition facts and ignore the ingredients list; my childhood allergy doesn't even enter my mind. Arrowhead Mills spelt flakes are delicious, though.
Your sister's a completely different jumble of molecules, and my experience might not apply, but I would recommend a similar approach my family took: switch to boring food for a year or two, even in the tricky social situations surrounding food. Then, talk to the allergist (or don't) about safely testing subcategories of corn product. The worst offenders are probably the sweeteners. I hope corn flour makes it back on her menu, but if not, I imagine now is a great time to be allergic and on the Internet.
I agree the author of the site does not understand God from the aspect that a Christian would (regardless of whether he is a former Christian). So while some may say by me saying that I'm about to pull a "True Scotsman" fallacy on what a True Christian would say I would counter by saying he is merely "straw manning" what God, the Bible, and a Christian would say and is taking things out of the context of the Gospel whole.
I haven't read his whole site, but probably have counted atleast 5 times so far reading it that he quotes Mark 11:24 which has Jesus saying, "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." I think the issue for non-Christians is they take that statement to be defeated by people that pray righteously and don't get what they want. However for Christians this is not an issue Jesus states in Matthew 5:45 "for [God] maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Job is an example of this. My point is that to a Christian these two statements/ideas are not at odds though they may seem that way at first.
So, though Jesus doesn't explicitly state you don't get everything you've ever wanted just by praying for it he does state no matter who you are you good or evil you will have good and bad in your life. To me, I believe God does bless us for good/prayer just not in the way we may expect and ultimately all wrongs will be made right and justified just maybe not in this life. He is not a cosmic vending machine of which when we do a good work we are instantly gratified.
One of my main points in saying all this in a more general way is that to non-Christians The God of the Old and New Testament may seem to contradict himself, but I know there are answers to every one of those possible supposed contradictions even though not every person may immediately know the answer to every one of them.
> The God of the Old and New Testament may seem to contradict himself
Hmm. The context of who said what and what was said by whom gives additional meaning to the words. And to the person ignoring context and making one big salad/soup of it, the Bible can seem difficult to comprehend. Further complication is when ideas like "the word of God" is added to give it weight despite majority of it is in fact an inspired script or the statements of those who studied under the Rabbis (including Jesus).
It seems even in the most thorough studies of Christianity, the entire subject is challenging. And the difficulty can easily fall to dissuasion.
Yes and no. Yes there are more resources, and yes they're easier to discover, but you implied that was all that GP meant, but his point was they can be hard to find still. At least resources that try and give you intuition, so that's the "no" part. In terms of your question more availability of resources in general doesn't always mean you have better odds of finding good to great available resources for giving you these intuitions. The problem we have today, I believe, is the signal to noise ratio is low to build your intuition. It's a problem one of my professors explained once that so much of grade school and even required college math for most students is filled with the solve this equation mentality that you kind of miss the purpose of a lot of what higher level math is about. Sure part of it is still solving equations, but some other parts just as an example are about discovering truths (through for example a proof) that we didn't know before hand or hadn't built the intuition for before hand and that part of math is fun, but you do need a foundation for that too. It can be disheartening to learn that so much of math kind of kills that joy, and only focuses on the foundation of it the solving of the equations.
We often find ourselves sifting through materials that always assume you have (or can figure out) the intuition and make it hard to find something that digs a little deeper and allows something to stick. This happens in math, programming, and you name it. We kind of assume the intuition is already developed most the time. Writing depends on our audience. If you're a programmer like me imagine someone trying to explain a modern and complex algorithm to you while simultaneously explaining every small part of how a program executes all the way down to machine code. That would be a horrific way to try to learn just the algorithm itself and it would be drudgery to try and fight through finishing an article or book that contained that much information, and because of that it would be a waste of the author's time writing such a thing. The simple answer is usually is to either stick with simpler examples and try to build intuition like this book does (though that doesn't mean there is no complexity in the example still due to digging into the example from a fresh perspective), or to just write a book full of rules and examples through problem sets (think like a textbook on math).
I swear this is related, but my favorite course in college was Discrete Mathematics which is sometimes titled something like Mathematics of Computer Science. The interesting thing is it was the first time in Math and at school that someone has explained to me the meaning of things that build a foundation in Logic in mathematics like "for all", "there exists", logical operators, and the negation of any of those things and what they mean. It was enlightening to say the least. It gave me an intuition behind the language of proofs. It allowed me to write my own proofs and to be able to read other proofs. Which proofs are everywhere in mathematics and understanding a proof is exactly like building an intuition of the underlying math. I couldn't believe after taking that one course that I actually understand textbooks way more often, and could understand that most the learning didn't happen by going example to example and solution to solution, but by understanding the underlying rule. Math always seemed, so much more ambiguous to me before then like the rules didn't clearly define every edge case and outcome, but they almost always certainly do.
Really neat. I was mainly curious to know when they are planning to release the self hosted docker versions of Penpot 2.0. Although I found this issue on their Github and it Looks like its coming in the next couple days hopefully [1].
> [1]: Was jai written by an AI coding agent? No. While this web site was obviously made by an LLM (ChatGPT read the man page, asked some follow-up questions, and produced a prompt from which claude code built a vitepress site), jai itself was hand implemented by a Stanford computer science professor with decades of C++ and Unix/linux experience. As an experiment, the author did previously try vibe-coding a container, but the results were disastrous and repeatedly put his machine in a state that required a reboot (e.g., recursively changing the attributes of all mounts in the wrong mount namespace). The author does use coding agents to look for bugs, get feedback, and develop tests. However, rest assured that a single human understands every line of C++ in jai.
[1] https://jai.scs.stanford.edu/faq.html
reply