Oops, someone forgot languages evolve! Otherwise you must use Turkye, one of the Middle English spellings.

The United Nations agreed to their request, it’s a minor thing to let people spell it the way that was requested. You don’t have to, but others can. Languages evolve.

They evolve and they don’t. People call things whatever they want. How is it going for X/Twitter?

Twitter/X is a company, it calls itself whatever it wants, and is likely registered somewhere under a specific name. Okay, people don’t call it X, the same way people pronounce IKEA weirdly or refer to vacuums as hoovers.

Language is a malleable, artificial construct. What’s your point? That some people are stuck in their ways? Because the comment I was responding to was appalled that someone dares use the modern spelling for a country.

Gemini’s smug and over-confident “this is the gold standard in 2026” definitely leaves little space for nuance if you don’t know the subject matter. Human students would, hopefully, know they don’t know everything.

>Anthropomorphizing these systems is dangerous

That ship has sailed. Humans will anthropomorphize a rock if you put googly eyes on it.

First I thought to myself, "my daughter does this and it looks so cute". And only as a second thought, that your comment just proved itself.

It's only "statistically generated" in the same way that your brain is just "neurons firing." That's the low-level description of what's happening, but on a higher level, it's correct to say that it's being smug.

> it's correct to say that it's being smug.

It's not correct to say that it's being smug, because when people are being smug, we do it for a purpose - e.g. to signal higher social status or superior knowledge.

A machine has no such imperative, so what you call 'being smug' is statistical mimicry.

I suppose the model was trained in such a way, the smugness is a facsimile of reality. Other models offer concise, direct answers without these idiotic qualifiers.

The LLM has learned certain behaviors, including smugness. Its motivations for being smug may be different, but it's being smug nonetheless.

I rarely use Opus for planning (in the Pro plan). Spec a feature in Sonnet, hand it to Haiku, come back for review. That’s a 5-hour window gone, sometimes 2.

I hit my weekly limit around day 4, with 2 maxed out windows per day (and sometimes a bit of usage at night).

I completely understand why people would use Opus for everything, it’s much more thorough and effective. Sonnet as well, but on Pro it’s gonna be Haiku all the time.

my workflow allows for about 10 windows being maxed out each week(if this threads claim is true that is now 5 windows), i always use Opus for planning and just have strict rules for delegation when its actually crafting the code.

I have a pretty nailed down .claude/ where the goal is single sources of truth, so agent md files all reference the relevant files for what domain they are working within with that domain's conventions and structure etc, i think keeping this stuff up to date is massive compounding context savings, as well as just better for performance because it keeps all agents context windows free of noise by helping them only load in what is actually needed.

I've never really messed with haiku for anything besides absolute low end repetitive tasks, its usually an agent i have crafted when i want to ask it to generate a bunch of seed data or generic questions for tests or something similar. My assumption is that it would just be terrible and even though its super cheap, it is still inevitably bringing the final results back to the better models and if thats not valuable tokens then im wasting the haiku tokens and the passoff to the better models with work that will be repeated anyway.

On the Pro plan you can max 10 windows per week using Opus for planning? I’m impressed. Even with Serena and really tight context management, I use Sonnet for most planning and Haiku for implementation. That gets me through the week doing 1 or 2 features and 10-ish windows of bug fixing.

I find the ethics of power generation, resource use, and pollution in a world struggling with climate change to be more of a challenge than whether a few people can run some software. And that’s coming from a Claude user that’s getting tired of their shenanigans.

Sibling comment does a great job, but I just wanted to add that their Terms and Privacy Policy are simply not compatible with privacy-friendliness.

I used to analyse PPs to detect usage of data brokers, and I’ll confidently say that these 2 have some of the worst policies out there, although less obvious companies such as Netflix and Spotify also had appalling conditions.

If a policy is compatible with data brokerage, you can very well assume they do it, and that means they’ll share your data and get shared data about you in return. But hey, “we don’t SELL your data!”

Thanks for the explanation. I’ve moved away from frontend work in 2018, and I really have no idea what CSS can do anymore! So much of the CSS in this page looks cryptic to me.

Kudos to the author for posting something cool and new in the age of standardised styles.

css-doodle's syntax has a lot of non-standard-CSS stuff in it. All the @ things are extensions.

LLMs seem hellbent on generating Tailwind interfaces. So much of the internet was already like this, so I’m not sure it’s a Claude thing (Google Stitch doesn’t seem to know how to make anything else).

This type of trivia is why I found Bill Bryson’s “At Home” so entertaining. Tariff on windows? People cover them with bricks. Tariff on glass? Windows made of other materials. Tariff on… well, maybe stop designing tariffs if you can’t predict the outcome!

Or Reason's Great Moments in Unintended Consequences series: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBuns9Evn1w9XhnH7vVh_7C65...

Let’s not pretend like all drugs are equally addictive, or that some tech products aren’t even more so. You’re comparing TikTok to crack, but it’s much more like coming off E, where your life has no sense of pleasure or happiness for weeks/months (anhedonia, I think it’s called), and you’re left on edge for any source of contentment.

So you believe clinically diagnosable Anhedonia and ecstasy withdrawal is...similar to what happens if a teenager isn't allowed to watch tiktok for a few days...hrmmm.

I'm just astonished how hard all of the supposedly rational engineering minds of hackernews are falling for this classic moral panic. The crowd of mindless pitchforks is cringe.

It must be a cognitive gymnastics that makes people here feel more important. How powerful it must feel to believe your email job can addict and destroy the world...via...javascript scroll effects on...mobile entertainment apps.

I mean, how else do you rationalize the fact that you're paid as much as a heart surgeon to implement react components and reply thumbs up to messages on slack? All this doomsday cosplaying must help square the cognitive dissonance.

Come on, that’s not a fair take. Most of us build unimportant and mediocre things at best, but TikTok is especially designed for addiction, shortening of attention spans, and making you come back.

Instagram was supposedly the same, with Meta internally knowing that. They said it themselves, the teenagers couldn’t stop using Instagram even if they wanted to. I mean, isn’t that addiction?

I don’t need to feel important. I’m an addict trying to stay away from my triggers. It’s not Instagram, but I also know how that one feels, because I had an account for years. Of course I’m not saying it’s exactly like a drug — any drug —, but that to dismiss the very real, very negative design of these tools is also folly. They hijack the same brain chemistry, to similar results, and a different scale of recovery.

No, developers aren’t special. Nobody in tech is. But Instagram themselves, in their own document, are basically admitting to behaving like a very capable dealer of a neural drug.