rhaksw
Joined 7 years ago
Karma
976
Submissions
344
Member since
May 31
Recent submissions
Comment · 2 months ago
> I've heard it argued that this is an antipattern. If the file is large, it will read the whole file. With Read or something similar, it can do a targeted search and read only the relevant portion.
I suspect you're right and that's why they haven't fixed @-search in the desktop app.
I actually don't find myself using it anymore since moving to the desktop app. I went from using various AI extensions in the IDE to Claude Code desktop.
But if that's accurate, why mention it in this post? Maybe because that's the first thing developers will try when moving away from a code editor?
Comment · 2 months ago
> @-mention files instead of naming them
Love Claude, but the @ mention is broken in the desktop app. For the same project if I type the same query "@ephem" I get:
CLI: https://imgur.com/a/VZMUCOa (good, relevant results)
Desktop: https://imgur.com/a/QLSo4Ms (bad, irrelevant)
Opened issue for this and it was automatically closed:
https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/71421
I could have written the issue better (using CLI as comparison instead of VS Code). But, no doubt in my mind Claude could fix this itself in a minute.
Comment · 1 year ago
> In the tussle between regulators and companies, companies are disadvantaged.
When society once again properly separates governmental powers, it will restore balance, and then companies will no longer need to fear "regulators."
In the US, businesses are supposed to be regulated by Congress. That way, if Congress does something foolish, we can vote them out.
But in the last 100 years or so, "administrative law"– that is, binding regulations created by the Executive branch– has become a huge part of law-making [1]. Widespread use of Administrative Law allows Congress to wash its hands of any real decision making.
It isn't supposed to be this way, and I think we will find our way out of it.
Your statement that companies are disadvantaged only rings true because Executive-branch regulators are not held to account. Lower-level staff generally do not rotate from administration to administration, and so they make tons of binding rules without oversight. Fortunately, SCOTUS recently overturned some of this [2].
The fundamental problem is that the separation of powers, which is where America's strength comes from, has been upended. Power has been collected, by parties on all sides, within the Executive branch. It's supposed to be, Congress writes law, Judiciary interprets law, and the Executive enforces law. The Administrative State, however, combines all three powers into one under the Executive. It gives itself executive agencies that can bind citizens, and its own courts (ALJs) to determine their fate. See [1] for a comprehensive review.
[1] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo174366...
[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Comment · 1 year ago
> "Tempo/MacQuake Palace"
Confession: I ran that. Sorry, Apple– that was wrong!
If I recall correctly, I'd grab the latest version from a private Hotline site, then re-host it on my public server backed by a cable modem, whose name you got right. I loved Quake too.
I'm not sure that all was healthy at the time, and I like to imagine I'm over such distractions, but here I am..
Comment · 2 years ago
> The democratic element is in the selection of an executive every 4 years.
That did nothing to help the fishery in this case. The burdens placed upon them came from a lower level bureaucrat, a decision that likely never crossed Trump's desk. That's just one regulation among thousands per year for which there is no accountability.
Comment · 2 years ago
> I think it's more analogous to the overlap between police and prosecutors.
Those both fall under the executive branch. Plus, Chevron deference was about the court's actions, not prosecutors'.
> Another difference is that agency rulemaking is not made in a vacuum; there's a pretty elaborate rulemaking process which includes (iirc) notices of proposed rulemaking, mandatory public comment periods spanning months, pre-publication of draft rules to allow the possibility of litigation and so on.
That gives the illusion of a democratic process, but in reality, agency rulemakers are not accountable to the people, whereas Congress is. Keep in mind that the fisheries regulation in question on this case was passed during the Trump administration– so it's not like electing a conservative to head the executive put a stop to excess regulation, which is generally a position that conservatives advocate.
Comment · 2 years ago
This decision has more to do with the Court owning its own past mistake, where they deferred to executive agencies. But both the judiciary and the legislative enabled the executive to consolidate lawmaking and interpretive power, thus violating the separation (and balance) of powers. Overruling Chevron is a step in the direction of restoring the balance of power. The balance may never be perfect, but at least we can see when we're far off course and make a correction.
Comment · 2 years ago
He's probably referring to Administrative Law Justices (ALJs), who are part of the executive, not the judiciary.
Comment · 2 years ago
The executive does not interpret law in the sense understood by the separation of powers. Interpretation is a judiciary power.
Comment · 2 years ago
> Chevron was based on the idea that if statutory text is ambiguous the people in charge of implementing said statute were best positioned to figure out what it meant
Wouldn't it be odd if the police also acted as the judge in your criminal trial? That's the point here, to separate lawmaking and interpretive power from the enforcers. Consolidation of power is dangerous because it doesn't work.
> in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act
This ruling made clear that the Chevron doctrine was not in line with the APA,
"Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires."
Comment · 2 years ago
It's more clear if you use the word vest and divest rather than delegation. Congress cannot divest its own legislative powers, nor can it vest them in another branch.
Comment · 2 years ago
Congress cannot divest its legislative power, nor can it vest interpretive power to executive-branch agencies. The judiciary interprets law— not Congress.
Comment · 2 years ago
I'd argue their success comes from making people think they're in an open discussion forum, or at least know when they're moderated, when in fact users get moderated left and right without their knowledge.
And rather than addressing that problem, with this IPO they've heaped on another one.
mail: robert at domain of https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq
podcast: https://youtu.be/ndiAl6QEA6k?t=1373
https://twitter.com/rhaksw
https://old.reddit.com/user/rhaksw
October, 2022 Talk: https://shadowmoderation.com/2022-10-transparent-moderation/