benzible

"Nobody is resolving bugs" is weird. Coding agents are great at resolving bugs! So much of what I see posted here seems more about how coding agents are being misused rather than anything inherent to them.

Watched about a minute of it - starts with an anecdote about a guy with a no-show job, then moves to big tech layoffs and "these companies ran exactly the same" afterwards, implying that everyone who was laid off was 100% dead weight. Turned it off immediately.

Or perhaps this guy perceived normal, appropriate management that he would have been perfectly fine with had it come from a man as “bossy” when it came from a woman.

"The caveats, which are the honest place to start" UGH

That is not how any of this works. He was convicted of fraud, and fraud was committed the moment he transferred the funds to Alameda. That he placed some bets that worked out, like his Anthropic investment, doesn't negate the crime any more than if I robbed a bank, placed a winning bet with it and returned the funds with interest.

Of course. Trump isn't aware of "details" like this. But he's very much on board with the "own the libs" project, the project of helping fossil fuel, and he appointed the people who are making it happen.

Although with Trump, it's more specific than "owning the libs": a clear motivating force is undoing anything Obama did or that was around on his watch. Pulling out of the JPOA agreement Obama made with Iran, then launching a war at the price of tanking the global economy which best case will result in a pale imitation of the JPOA (along with a much stronger and richer Iran), is only the latest example.

I wouldn't assume that this is about cost cutting. If the goal were saving money, the cheapest option by far would be to leave the hardware in the water and just stop funding the monitoring. Instead the plan is an expensive operation to send ships out to extract 900+ instruments from under two miles of ocean.

It's clear that this is driven by performative climate denialism and a pro fossil fuel stance. The Trump administration made a billion dollar deal with an energy company to stop construction of offshore wind farms and redirect the investment into fossil fuel projects. Trump constantly talks about the "green new scam" and "climate alarmism". And on top of signaling to his base, Trump met with oil executives at Mar-a-Lago before the 2024 election and pitched them on rolling back climate regulation in exchange for $1B in campaign cash. Destroying the instruments that would document the consequences and might spark alarm and activism is one way to hold up his end of the deal.

In the context of Claude Code, "honest" usually means that the agent took a shortcut, skipped requirements, etc. It's the model giving itself credit for admitting to failing rather than actually doing what was requested.

And I love seeing sentiments attributed to me, in quotes even, that I didn't state or imply, and certainly don't believe. "Critical" by itself is not a synonym for "slanted". However the post I was commenting on was:

> Right, but the picture those statements painted collectively was not flattering. And that was certainly intended by the authors. Thus, critical, but not at all "incendiary."

The key there is "certainly intended by the authors". The full sentiment here IS equivalent to "slanted".