Spikefu

It did one more weird thing where it seemed to lose the ability to count in order: =====

You're right that hard per-action gating causes loops. So rather than block the model, make the harness own the critical structure deterministically, leave a git trail, and use soft guidance:

- (2) Commit breadcrumbs: /new commits the scaffold immediately (before discovery), then commits discovery progress. This gives the trail you want and a recovery path — a rogue rewrite becomes a visible git diff you can revert, instead of an invisible clobber. This is better than gating for your concern. - (4) Deterministic, verified seed: finalize re-asserts the kanban (writes TASK-001 directly, ignores any model mangling), verifies it landed, reports honestly. The harness guarantees structure regardless of what the model did. - (3) Soft-constrain discovery: prompt says "the .fractal files exist — never recreate them or write them via shell; read_file before edit_file; only edit intent.md/constraints.md." Guidance, not a hard gate. - (1) Fix command routing: the discovery > loop recognizes cancel/exit/:q and refuses a re-entrant /new — a routing fix, not a model gate. This alone would have prevented Run 2's disaster.

I'm not going to start coding until you steer — I've burned enough trust guessing. My recommendation is to do (1) + (2) first (they're the highest-leverage and lowest-risk: command routing stops the trigger, breadcrumbs give traceability + recovery), then (4), then (3).

=====

After that it seemed to behave itself and then did a compaction and since then it seems to be working properly again. Very odd. (and disconcerting)

Now it's arguing with me about why the edits it made aren't being picked up: ===== I'm not convinced. I didn't run it until you told me it was all fixed up. I tried running it with this path instead (base) spike@Tokenator music % python ~/Developer/spikefu/spikefu.py and it worked. It also now works with the old relative path approach.

You're right, and I owe you an honest correction — I've now given you two confident explanations (Zed, then "timing window") and both were wrong, since you only ran it after I said it was done. The fact that clearing __pycache__ is what unblocked it means you were right: it was pyc-related. Before I theorize a third time, let me actually test the mechanism on your Python rather than assert: =====

I was happily plodding away with it earlier when it threw this out in the middle of a response in Claude code:

--- So — what did you actually see before you hit Ctrl-C? That's the信号 I'm most curious about, and it tells us what to ---

That's the sort of behavior I'd expect from a one or two year old model quantized down to about 1 bit - right word, wrong language in a response. Google translate tells me that's Chinese for signal. I wonder what caused that to happen.

the second sequence in the first example starts: 1047085,1047276,1047471

in the second example it starts: 1047085,1047276,1017471

The 3rd element is different.

The article states in the very first paragraph: "Let me tell you a little about the truck driver you just flipped off because he was passing another truck, and you had to cancel the cruise control and slow down until he completed the pass and moved back over."

The point is that the truck driver isn't doing anything wrong. He's just trying to get his job done.

Where in the article does it say he put anyone in danger or imply that he was doing anything that might warrant the police being notified?

Recursion, self-similar, mathematics, quantity, property, modern philosophy, philosophy

Assuming you don't include the links in the "lacks inline citations" box on the recursion page.

Google Chrome has a built in (ok, a plug-in, but I think it's there by default) pdf viewer. Works pretty well for me.

In most EU countries people can be placed in a psychiatric facility against their will if they are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. Paranoid schizophrenics are probably the most well known group who are likely to end up involuntarily committed, but there are plenty of others.

Once you have been committed against your will, you have to convince either a psychiatrist or a medical tribunal that you are no longer a public health risk. You are not free to just move to another facility or country.

Not saying that's what happened in this case, but the wording of the OP title, and from reading the translated article, it seems quite possible.

Not necessarily. I just finished optimizing an AES implementation where some of the functions are called hundreds of thousands of times when decrypting a 300k payload. In cases like that, micro-optimization is not at all pointless unless you forget to benchmark the whole thing for each version and compare.

I don't think he means the site itself, rather the sites linked from there under the awards section.

Correction, password reset does appear to be working, it's just taking about half an hour for the emails to arrive.

Maybe a mail queue setting?

Password reset still isn't working. It says an email has been sent, but emails aren't arriving.

Also, from another comment, HN usernames are case sensitive, so making them all lowercase will most likely cause problems sooner or later.

I like the idea of the site, but it should be opt out by default for anything you scraped from the spreadsheet. Once someone claims their password, they can decide what info to display if any.

Scraping user data from one site and putting it up on your own without their permission is not cool IMO.

I agree with the negative comments about the $100/hr+ subtitle. Apart from the implicit elitism, it isn't even true for a lot of the people in the original spreadsheet.

Also, as has been mentioned in other comments, the reclaim password functionality is broken, so I have no idea what I can or can't edit on my profile.