igravious

Sometimes projects have no point other than to show what can be done – and the pure thrill of doing is an end in itself … but I agree with you in the "so what" sense here … I feel like with this project there is meant to be a point (other than play for the sake of play and art for the sake of art and coding for the sake of coding) but I'm not seeing it either?

EUV, or EUVL, no?

it's a strawman that the only two available options are the mutually exclusive "grin and eat shit" one or alternatively a heated argument

i stand by what i said here down-votes be damned; judging by our brief interaction and your telling anecdote you come across as a smug disagreeable know-it-all and in their position i wouldn't have hired you -- there is after all the option to hire someone who both knows their stuff and doesn't come across the way you do

Oh Revolut's down are they? Let me tell you about an interview I did with them. Blah blah blah. Yeah, no thanks.

oh!

who or what is mrkeen?

even if you were technically correct why would a company hire someone who demonstrates that they are unable to disagree in such a way that a heated argument does not ensue? i'd say they dodged a bullet.

Exactly; couldn't have put it better myself.

My Claude too, have no fear. You are not the only one.

Now fill the context in batches of 10% and see where its obedience drops off

I like Grok 4.6 the model, I like it for a number of reasons. I like Grok Build too.

However, I've pointed Grok 4.6 at a fairly complex codebase and asked it to review/audit it for issues and it's come back with a whole laundry list of issues. I've passed that list to Kimi and Claude and they both were like "a couple of good catches but some of those are not issues at all". Grok 4.6 is noticeably weaker that Claude Fable 5, Claude Opus 5, Claude Opus 4.8, Kimi K3, GLM 5.3, … your suggestion to use Grok 4.6 instead of a recent Claude doesn't pass empirical scrutiny.

ah, i see -- you're one of those people

> There are no other models out there for coding.

that wasn't your claim.

your claim was:

> There are so many other better models right now.

wrt coding that is untrue.

not for coding.

Sam? Is that you?