quietbritishjim

I guess they're skeptical because it seems incredible that having access to Cursor's marketplace would allow you to publish updates to a different organisation's extensions.

In fairness, that is very surprising.

In this situation, Cursor did not make any reasonable attempts to check this extension really was from anthropic.

So for the analogy, it really is like Costco didn't make any attempt to check they were buying actual iPhones.

I don't think that is normal UK usage. It sounds odd to me without "or" before the "else" in those sentences. From other comments here, that seems to be true for others too.

"Someone else" sounds correct but else isn't trying to act as a conjunction there.

Who in this comment chain said they do that?

A closer analogy would be: If you make a food sample based on a description I gave you, and we typically agree not to record anything about either my description or your resulting recipe, and then you asked for (recorded) feedback - would I expect that I'm implicitly allowing you to record my requirements and your recipe with it?

I mean, still perhaps not. But it's not quite as ridiculous as your analogy makes it sound.

I think that all your data proves, with 100% certainty, is that you can't extrapolate from a sample size of 1.

It is very clear for many children that allowing them to gorge themselves on TV (or whatever) will not result in them self regulating.

This is often pretty easy (depending on your circumstances) for a first child, and we mostly followed it for our first. (There was a little screen time before she got to 2 but only low intensity shows on a regular full-sized TV - still her only screen time several years on, but with more choice from her).

With a second it's practically impossible. We'd need extra childcare (and more floorspace where we live!) to trap him in a different room while the first is watching TV. Taking TV away from the first would be very hard (you're right that it's hard to withdraw once it's routine) but also not something I'd want anyway.

I'm not convinced that it necessarily expands out once it has a foothold. We have a pretty well defined TV time (before dinner) and it's easy to say "yes you can watch that show ... when it's next TV time".

Never letting a 3 year old watch any TV is a defensible position if you can manage it, but is definitely on the extreme end of actual practice.

Sorry for the nitpick, but ossification means the opposite of how you're using it here. It means existing structures / practices becoming frozen in place, by analogy with real ossification which is where flexible cartilage hardens into rigid bone.

That is important or critical in some companies. But that's surely not what they meant by fitting their "mental model" better.

Another UX issue is that, for me, dragging up and down rotates the scene in the opposite direction than I expect. Even once I realised it, I found it really hard to control, like wearing mirror glasses.

That totally misses the point. No matter how surprising the output of the compiler's adaptive optimiser, the observable behaviour (except speed) of the program, when run, will be the same. That is clearly not true of LLM output.

No, I explained that already in my comment. It was in an edit, maybe you drafted your reply before that. I said:

> The point is not that every explanation will be understood, but to at least demonstrate that there is a reason for preventing fun things, even if it's complex and confusing.

If I tell my 3 year old that watching too much TV will affect her concentration, I absolutely don't expect her to make a complex long-term value judgement, or even to know what the word "concentration" means. I also don't expect her to just say "oh fair enough then". As I said, it's just to demonstrate that there is a reason (even if she doesn't understand it) beyond my own satisfaction.

Can you really not see that there are three possibilities here:

1. "I don't care if you're upset, so that's what we're doing".

2. "I don't want you to be upset, and although there's a good reason, if I can't persuade you logically then you can have it your way"

3. "I don't want you to be upset, but there's a good reason, so that's what we're doing"

(Edit: Having written that, the last one is still not quite right. The point is to acknowledge why that have that feeling - not just assert that they're upset. Usually it's pretty simple e.g. they want to carry on playing. But it does take more effort than either of the other approaches.)

> I sometimes see parents ...

In my experience (from casual observation), the very worst behaved children have uncaring parents that shout and scream at them.