I don't trust either of them to be honest, which is why I want the actual deal released to the opposition party so that the parliamentary system can function as intended
It's the current CPC line of attack. A month or so ago they tried arguing that Carney, a former governor of two national banks, is worse at economics than a career politician. That didn't go well. Now they're trying to make the case that some kind of conspiracy is going on because a working agreement, which probably isn't in a neat and tidy state and which would probably embarrass and anger the Americans if released in full, wasn't immediately sent to the press.
It's the CPC's job to be critical of Carney. It's everyone else's job to decide when their arguments are grounded in reality.
Yeah 51st state governer carney. This guy is deadly serious. Deals hammered out with Trump are not worth the paper they’re written on. Besides that Trump has already violated CUSMA a deal he signed himself and has invoked ridiculous laws to punish Canada while lying through his teeth the entire time.
It’s also worth mentioning that these are very western ideas. Lots of other cultures derive alternative structures not based around 12 half steps to an octave and so on.
Oddly, or perhaps predictably, or both, most of them still converge on the same basic pitch classes.
The example I'm most familiar with is Carnatic and Hindustani music, where there are theoretically 22 tones per octave, and in fact the tones in most cases actually cover a range of frequencies rather than a single one. Nevertheless, the most common and most popular music from those traditions tends to only use about 7 tones per octave (equivalent to a western "scale"), and they still have a very central for tone ratios like 3/2.
Battery life. I love my Linux laptops, and I don't mind being selective to make sure the hardware's fully supported, but whatever the reason Mac battery life is second to none.
I can get that being annoying. I enjoy that keybinds are a configurable thing in the linux distributions and DEs that I've used, and I've found that most tend to have sane defaults. I assume that the situation is similar in macOS, but I don't know. The last time I've used any version of macOS was in 2008 during school, and I was far too young to really "get" computers, so I never experienced them in the way that I assume many people do now. The only other Apple products I've used since has been some combination of fourth gen and seventh gen ipod nanos (which were excellent, save for windows iTunes). Is there some secret sauce that Apple has that I'm just unexposed to that makes it wonderful?
I've used linux desktops for years, and in my experience it is quite difficult to fight against the default keybindings. It is much easier to go with the status quo, which is annoying especially if you regularly switch between a mac and linux machine.
My NixOS + Hyprland desktop largely has the same shortcuts as OSX. I super+space for launching things. Super+Q for quitting. Custom keybinds are trivial. I always thought KDE and Gnome were kind of garbage, but Hyprland gets out of the way and really lets me build the desktop environment I want.
If that were the case, the habit would have been trained out of it by the LLM researchers at Anthropic, etc. As for humans... well Idk about you but I'm not reading every line of generated code. I read the live transcript, and only dive in if something is off that the agent isn't resolving.
I'm certainly reading the code and comments, and I encourage all of my team members to do so. You are assuming that this excessive and nonsensnical comment choice is deliberate. It cannot be, or should not be because it regularly confused our team, and it regularly confuses claude also.
Also many many people keep saying the same thing and you keep repeating adnausium the same tired comments. I get it, you think the comments are great and are valuable.
The concensus in this thread is that for multiple reasons the excessive comments are in fact actively harmful. The listed reasons are:
1. Document the conversation, not the code — narrate the back-and-forth that produced the change rather than what the code does
2. Reference intermediate states that never shipped ("previously X, now Y")
3. Cite plan documents and session artifacts (`per section 2.1 of addition-implementation-plan.md`) meaningless to a future reader
4. Belong in commit messages or PR comments, not source files
5. Go stale immediately — describe a state the code is no longer in
6. Launder incorrect code as intentional, making bugs harder to spot
7. Build a false Chesterton's fence around mistakes
8. Use defensive prose ("this is not cosmetic", "prevents the critical bug that shipped once") that asserts importance instead of conveying information
9. Describe what the code doesn't do — relevant in the moment, not in the codebase
10. Confuse later agent sessions, sending them to read irrelevant files
11. Consume context tokens on every read
12. Force reviewers to manually delete the litter
13. Resist correction — telling Claude to be concise doesn't durably stick
Please consider that your opinion may need to adjusted.
Why wouldn't it be deliberate? Do you think it's happening without the Anthropic team's go ahead? Or maybe they aren't aware that it's happening?
Yes, I "push back" because an LLM using any means at it's disposal to improve itself is just a logical thing, and I have seen it help Claude. Because I read the live transcript (so I know what it's doing and can steer if I see it veering off), I've seen quite a few times the comments it made previously give it some extra context, which more times than not leads to it self-correcting. There are a few times where it becomes a bit confused because some comment block is stale, but it usually surfaces this confusion, which again I will usually catch and properly steer because I read that live transcript.
It's very similar to someone scribbling notes in the margins or between the lines in the pages of a printed work. Sure it looks messy to others (I personally would hate reading something with another's scribblings), but it's a sensible thinking aid for that person. And if another person reads some given note, they can always question the writer about it, if deemed appropriate.
No, I'm going to take a stance similar to Galileo and "stick to my guns" despite what others were/are saying, because it's not only empirical (I've seen it), but also logical (it makes sense). LLMs need extra context for non-obvious things, and without it, they can easily lose their way. There are many tools out there trying to solve the extra context problem with various degrees of success, but I say the most efficient method is having that extra context always available at the point where it's relevant, so there's no need for the agent to waste tokens making tool calls to get it, or even waste thinking tokens wondering if it should call a tool in the first place to see if there is extra context. Just like a human rereading a work will naturally encounter any previous notes they made between the lines or in the margins, and trigger related recollections. And yes, human-scribbled notes also become stale and irrelevant, but that won't stop the human finding at least some of it useful and timely. In either case, the quality of the notes taken could likely use improvement, but blocking the at-site note-taking itself leads to generally reduced effectiveness.
> Why wouldn't it be deliberate? Do you think it's happening without the Anthropic team's go ahead? Or maybe they aren't aware that it's happening?
Yes that’s exactly what I think. I also don’t think the team was aware that opus 5 talks like an overcooked gibbon either. And what’s more I’m certain that it will do neither very soon.
I just had Perplexity check out the Bun code to get an idea of how "comment crazy" it is[0]. Based on the results I'd say it's good signal that Anthropic is pretty aware that Claude loves to comment the non-obvious, and this is a desired feature (unless they're somehow clueless about what's happening in a signature public-facing project). Which, again, is a logical take so there isn't a profusion of auto-memory entries, oversized CLAUDE.md, etc which all require extra tool calls or are always in the context window.
I didn’t see china calling to annex Canada. The bad relations between china and Canada were also principally caused by the US insisting that we detain Meng Wanzhou. We can see what thanks we got for that.
You can accept what you like, but it's true. Our team and our business is incredibly more productive. The number of new valuable customer facing features, and the number of PRs (which represent REAL work, not taking a PR and splitting it into 200 PRs game) have all increased dramatically. We've shipped something like ~10x more PRs so far this year than all last year. And we've done that without increasing the number of bugs and outages.
reply