trixn86

"Nordhaus co-wrote the standard economics textbook taught globally"

Which is tragic because it is a neoclassical fiction book misleading millions of students. Anyone who is really interested in the history of economic thought will avoid that book for anything other than being a reference of the theoretical position of the neoclassical synthesis.

Ah okay thanks for the pointer.

Weird that is exactly the theme in Ted Lasso Season 4 Episode 7 but the article seems to have been released February 27, 2026 while the Ted Lasso Episode was released September 16, 2026. Who's original idea was this?

> They need to have direct instruction that is in the context, that is appropriate for the project and codebase at hand

> I recognize that crafting a 'perfect' prompt is impossible, but neither is writing the perfect code, or even the 'perfect' code style guide

This is not about "perfect code" or style guides. For code styles we have linters, that does not require any instructions. I'm talking about software architecture for large complex web applications that dozens of people (that also change frequently) contribute to and that is spread across many different repos/services and an environment with constantly changing business requirements.

The terms that are relevant here are: coupling, cohesion, vertical slices, module boundaries and so on. This is software architecture and coding agents are terrible at this and there is no prompt and no instruction fixes this that could reasonably fit into a context window. I don't even think that coding agents fail because the lack the instructions and therefore adding instructions won't fix these failure modes.

> Unix philosophy in the system prompt could be useful if the code wants to be worked on later again

There is no system prompt that can prevent this. If all you needed was some kind of rather short instruction we'd already have that baked into harnesses a long time ago. The problem is not that agents do not have the right instructions, they theoretically have everything there is to know about software architecture already in their training data.

> Vaping definitely isnt healthy for you

nobody claimed otherwise

> Studies have shown that the vape smoke stimulates the vagus nerve which causes changes in the cardiovascular system that could likely cause heart disease

Can you name this study? Are you talking about "E-cigarettes and their lone constituents induce cardiac arrhythmia and conduction defects in mice"? This study did not find what you claim. All it found is that in mice the heart rhythm during and right after exposure increased. This is far from claiming that it "could likely cause heart disease" in humans. Also human switching studies point the other way. smokers who move to vaping show improvements in blood vessel function within weeks. I don't know why people really need to twist study results to depict vaping more harmful than it is. Yes, it is not healthy and you shouldn't do it. But all scientific evidence conclusively points to vaping, even heavy vaping, still being way less harmful than smoking because we already know that basically all harm comes from inhaling the residues of combustion, not from the nicotine. Condeming vaping as being equally bad as smoking is irresponsible and unscientific and prevents proven harm reduction for heavy smokers.

As far as I know the academic consensus is that taking in more nicotine, even a lot more, doesn't turn vaping into something as harmful as smoking. Addiction is the main established "harm". Nicotine, even very much of it, is not considered a carcinogen. There are studies that suggest it could promote tumour growth but it hasn't been shown in humans. There is also decades of data from nicotine replacement therapy and Swedish snus users and it shows little to no increase in heart attacks or strokes in otherwise healthy people. Another risk is accute poisoning, i.e. swallowing large quantities of liquid by children. As far as I know even the more alarming voices regarding nicotine do not regard it as harmful as inhaling fumes from combustion.

Also I don't think that there are many people that overdose nicotine regularily because it causes nausea and dizziness so people are normally self-regulating the nicotine dose automatically. So the scenario you are proposing doesn't seem to be something we can actually observe as a common consumption pattern.

Too much nicotine is far closer to drinking too much coffee than to smoking and has similar acute effects which is why almost nobody does it on a regular basis.

It didn't take 25 years to come up with Symmetric Encryption and AES but even though people try extensively to break it for the last 25 years no-one has come even close to anything that is not brute force (which is practically impossible even assuming very generous computing resources). So at least in that case coming up with the encryption seems to be a very solvable problem but breaking it seems close to impossible.

> It is generally harder to build a crypto system than to break one

It was harder to design Symmetric Encryption using e.g. AES-256 than to break it? As far as I know it's design is pretty straight-forward but there is no known way to break it even with all compute of the planet at your disposal (excluding trivial ways like exposing the key).

Time estimations by LLMs are hilariously incorrect all the time. It estimates very simple things that a human could do in an hour to take days or weeks and other things that are genuinely tedious and time-consuming it estimates taking a few hours. LLMs have no understanding of time and no world model that even allows them to make correct time estimates. They will always fail to provide decent time estimates unless the task is well-known, in the training data and they can extrapolate that with a simple math script.

> Why do you think this uncracked code was so simple to solve?

I never said this. All I said is we don't have the conversation and therefore we can't determine how easy or hard of a problem it was.

> And it's very possible Terra or GLM could crack it, turn off their web access and try yourself.

I'm questioning why this should be labeled "Astra" breaking anything implying it required "the best" model to do it when in fact any other half-decent model might have been able to do this as well.

EDIT: Okay seems like the actual prompt is published, just not on the same article that was linked. Maybe I'll give it a try.

Without the published conversation, train-of-thought and intermediate output and knowing what Astra did this is nothing but unfounded claims. In the end this could have been a web search, downloading an existing enigma simulator and trying out some rather obvious things. Also what does "resisted resolution" even mean? Have there even been serious attempts to decipher the message? How serious?

Also: Why should we assume Terra, GLM or any other less SOTA and less expensive model wouldn't have been able to do the same?

Secret tip to win the mario cart clone: Just hold w, no steering needed.

this! a semantic class name that is scoped to only that component and only ever used in that component is pointless indirection only needed to be able the reference the actual css properties in that other file sitting next to your component by using some name.