dacracot

I asked a question but have gotten no response. Why?

1. They have moved on and haven’t made the time. 2. They disagree with my premise and are ignoring it. 3. They don’t actually understand what Claude wrote and can’t answer.

I get 1 or 2, but I’m afraid 3 is more likely. What’s more my question is not the correctness of the code, but that the method used is cheating.

The repo is a solitaire simulation where the objective is to get the highest possible winning percentage. The Claude code appears to peek at face down cards to determine which stack to play. If I’m correct, that is clearly cheating.

New PR with unconfirmed claim of 12.188%. Will review and confirm soon.

Yes, it is low, but that is the challenge to fork the repo and up the winning percentage.

All I'm gonna say is if you reduce and optimize this design, you will end up with a round about.

As an individual that attended an ivy league school, this article seems absolute nonsense as to the causality of the authors inability to bridge the class barrier. My "elite education" is not the sum total of my life experience. My encounters with other people, be it other ivy league educated or high school drop out, is a learning experience and always has been. Judging them from a class perspective is simply unwise. Judge them by what they say and their actions. Are they true to their word? Are they willing to negotiate or state succinctly what their position is? These are what human interactions are about. The elite attitude that is attributed to "elite education" more likely a lack of interaction with "lower class" individuals from early in childhood.

So why isn't this an environmental/climate change issue. These corporations that want employees that can work from home to burn fuel and emit CO2 in order to travel to the office unnecessarily should be shamed for their lack of compassion and vision. These same corporations claim to be driving toward carbon neutral while simultaneously pushing for CO2 increase via their employees travel.

So this kind of analysis is always troublesome.

It isn't very hard to find instances of false positives when the sample size is so large. For those false positives, the cost and effort is no doubt a waste and potentially could distract from a real instance.

But what is the big picture here and the overall cost benefit? Can we find true positives where the crash victim is better off because of the alert? Are there more or less of these than the false positives? Have any of the true positives saved a life? How do you measure that? The algorithm no doubt does not have six sigma accuracy, but it that the bar that must be set before we save some lives?

As a 61 year old programmer, that knew this is what I would be doing since my first exposure as a junior in high school, I can say his insights aren't too bad. But 20 more years on, things start to hit harder. My best advice is to learn to coach, even if you aren't in a coaching role. Find that young 10x team member and teach them the subtleties of the abstractions that make a difference. Don't be offended when they rewrite your code to their way of thinking so long as it did not obfuscate the lesson, that's how they will learn.

Still doesn't suck.

Because it is awful.

Physics is simple? Can you describe to me what gravity is? Have you published your unified theory yet?

> Just as a sports team wins or loses together, so too should the engineering team be treated as the fundamental unit of success.

A sports team has a play book, does your team? A sports team practices together, does your team? A sports team works as a unit, does your team?

Too many times I have see engineering teams as only a team on the org chart In reality they solve tickets as individuals with only a small interaction from pull requests. Otherwise they might as well not even know each other. They are a team not as in basketball or football, but like golf where once you get to the tee, it's you and only you to get the ball in the hole.

I get your point, but without paragraphs of explanation, I doubt I could persuade you. I can say this... It was meant as a solitary exercise, not as a group.