0xffff2

But also, this skill is basically the same thing as an output style, so it won't work either.

How do you actually incorporate these into your prompt? Because I've tried and I've seen many others try and report that it does not work well, especially over long sessions.

I also don't know how much to trust the model, but I've had the model tell me specifically that certain aspects of ASD-STE100 are unactionable and will just create more noise.

The OP's own skill even leads with something in a very similar vein:

> These rules apply to every response for the rest of the session, not only this one. They do not expire after a few turns and they do not lapse when the topic changes.

My understanding is that phrases like this are at best a _very_ weak signal to the model. It's simply contradictory to how the model works at a level that can't be overridden by injecting tokens.

From the "10 rules":

> Specific time estimates (minutes, not "a bit").

I actually wish the model would go completely in the opposite direction. Except in the rare circumstances where the model has actually measured something, it is hilariously deficient in its concept of time. It will often output phrases like "this relates to <thing> that you did weeks ago", referring to something that happened in the session just a few turns (and hours or a couple of days) ago. Likewise for estimating how long a coding tasks takes, it is hilariously inept. It honestly feels like it rolls two completely independent dice to select a number and a value from (hours | days | weeks) when it needs to attach an estimate to something. I'd much rather read "a bit" than be distracted by these utterly nonsensical times.

The full skill gives this example:

>Bad: "This will take some work." Good: "About 15 minutes if tests already cover this. An afternoon if not."

My experience is that it is very likely that whatever task this is describing takes anywhere from 1 to 30 minutes, consistently. Maybe I just work way faster than the average person.

I think I'd be a strong fit for some of your roles, but the benefits advertised read to me like the absolute bare minimum to meet industry norms. Is there anything you would say is a real advantage for Apex?

I completely agree, except you've mirrored the X axis. Ubuntu/Fedora are on the right side; Arch is on the left.

Because on a general purpose tech forum, that title tells the reader absolutely nothing about the content of the post.

10% seems incredibly generous. I'd be shocked if it's 1%.

I really hate that I'm even typing these words right now, but wouldn't this be one of the few fields where modern LLMs would potentially provide a real capability that was previously lacking? I'm imagining an LLM might be able to provide rough first pass translations and provide hints about which specific tablets might be most interesting for a human that can't possibly look at them all.

I don't know how broad the trend is, but I am a contractor for the US government. I'm told that agencies are actually required by law to reduce square footage. So when they tore down my old building (which absolutely needed to go), they simply could not as a matter of law build a new building with the same square footage even if they had the budget.

The United States population has more than doubled since 1950. There is no "before" that we could actually go back to. The massive, sustained population growth is built on the massive efficiency growth.

Everyone has different opinions about this stuff, but I for one found _working_ in the office to absolutely be the worst part. And since Covid, my workplace has torn down old buildings and reduced square footage per employee, so if I went back to the office it would be even worse.

You're just lucky that your preferred spelling happens to align with Claude's. It is categorically impossible to get any Anthropic model to consistently use American spelling in the last few releases.

I mean, that happened one time and made national news. It's not nearly the same problem in terms of frequency.

I was also curious. A bit of searching suggests that it's in the mid 4 figure range. Honestly not nearly as bad as I expected.

I think we desperately need to start differentiating between "is creating" and "has created". I have a couple of "am creating" projects too, but their proximity to "have created" is directly proportional to how much effort and expertise _I_ am bringing, not so much related to the AI's contribution.