nathanyz

Agreed, it feels like Fable is the higher strategic level thinker even if it's end capabilities are the same on benchmarks, it actually does the code that matters, and not creating a bunch of code that doesn't.

But tokens.......

Your #2 is spot on. I have in fact said the same exact words to Opus about missing the forest for the trees.

I have it work on some code for an inhouse ClaudeCode plugin, and it starts coding as if it will be attacked by hackers who will try all sorts of variations to break it. I can appreciate that in cases of software that is public facing or accessible, but for a simple helper plugin it is overkill.

It will even admit that it is doing this when confronted, and then keep on getting lost in edge case verifications on the next turn. I feel like Opus is the person who does something a way you don't want, you tell them how you actually want it, they apologize, and then just continue doing it their way as if your input meant nothing to them.

The Sonnet 5 comment is spot on. Even Anthropic's own graph initially showed lower performance at higher costs. Only thing I notice about Sonnet 5 is that it does appear to hand off tasks to agents more frequently similar to Fable, but of course nowhere near the quality of Fable. My guess is that Opus 5 will do similar but just isn't ready yet.

I do use Claude Cowork and hence the VM is important, but I also leave the desktop app running all the time since I have many scheduled tasks at different times. The thing is that the VM could shutdown after being idle for some amount of time and then fire back up when you are ready to use it.

The VM itself is for Claude Cowork which does all work within the VM sandbox. That doesn't help answer why they spin it up immediately and don't have a way to disable it though. Just the "why it exists" question.

No, haven't found a killer use case for it as of now. Was only a really good personal movie theater.

So, one of the things I have personally seen is where these companies have in-house counsel and then CC that person on emails that could be problematic if they were ever required to be produced in discovery. Then if something does happen, it is easy to claim privilege on these emails and hide what are essentially non-legal related emails from lawsuits. There is flimsy cover of keeping counsel informed so they can provide legal guidance if needed, but that essentially undermines the legal process during a lawsuit as the very emails verifying a plaintiff's claim may be in these privileged emails, or maybe not, but without seeing them only the company and their legal teams knows.

Yes, this is unethical and also can lead to things like we see in this case where the judge will pierce privilege because it was being abused. But......unless you can prove that is what is going on in the emails, judges are very reticent to pierce privilege.

What if some people's hunger is louder than others? What if your expended willpower to not overeat is a lot less than what is required by others?

I ask these as that is what the GLP-1's are showing. They change the hunger feeling and it might just be that you and others got lucky with a lower hunger feeling than others. There is no objective measure of food noise, but I think we all need to be open to the possibility that the food noise is different for different people and its not all willpower or laziness.

I have been receiving 2-3 of these variations per day. Have been reporting them as phishing in our GSuite account, but they just keep coming.

The thing that he doesn't mention is that as soon as they do something legislatively and announce routes there, etc.....well Google just won't crawl those sites. It turns into a game of whether you would like 0 traffic from Google, or allow them to use your content both for search results and AI summaries.

Google is the bringer of traffic and if you want it, then you play by their rules. I don't like that the web is in that position, but here we are.