The comment I am responding to is referring to their own experience, which, at the population level, does not appear to be largely shared, as, at the population level (i.e., people in general, not intellectuls, not academics, all of them), it is evident that people consider tv shows, games, and tiktok superior (i.e. revealed preference) forms of entertainment with respect to books.
How was it not clear? I would prefer to engage with more substantive comments.
What's not clear to me is how aggregate preferences about entertainment media should affect my choice of entertainment media. TFA is worded to suggest that because "nobody" reads fiction, it should be dismissed when considering what to read.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that most people prefer Netflix to Umberto Eco. However, I don't. And that is one reason I reject the analysis in the article.
"Reply to this email" might not be a bad idea for some basic "making an explicit action" check.
Arguably if the question is mail delivery, email already has a complex system of delivery failure reporting. Just trust that, like email programs have been doing since email was invented? "No failure is a success," doesn't have an explicit acknowledgement action from a user, but it is still a meaningful criteria.
I love old books but this post is reactionary nonsense. It can only resort to weird ad hominem arguments about how Mary Beard hasn't tutored any princes and therefore her perspective must be lacking. Without any specifics about weaknesses in her writing or historical analysis.
The idea that perspective is so important smells, to me, too much like the kind of post-truth internet-poisoned modern world where everything is an op-ed and allegiances are to those with the right commitments.
The dismissal of all fiction seemed like a tongue-in-cheek opener designed to be undercut later, but no. Actually the author does just dismiss fiction because apparently Netflix and Twitter are so much better. Maybe the author knew their entire argument was insupportable and had to jettison as much baggage from the sinking ship as possible to give it a chance to make it to shore.
> Claude Code includes an intentional escape hatch mechanism that allows commands to run outside the sandbox when necessary. When a command fails due to sandbox restrictions (such as network connectivity issues or incompatible tools), Claude is prompted to analyze the failure and may retry the command with the dangerouslyDisableSandbox parameter.
The ability for the agent itself to decide to disable the sandbox seems like a flaw. But do I understand correctly that this would cause a pause to ask for the user's approval?
I agree, and by all accounts the success of coding agents is due to code being amenable to very fast feedback (tests, screenshots) so you can immediately detect bad code.
That's in terms of functionality, not necessarily quality though. But linters can provide some quick feedback on that in limited ways.
> we as customers are better off because things we want are cheaper
Why privilege that side of the equation over "we as workers"? Being a customer isn't all there is to life. I happen to spend quite a bit more time working than shopping.
It's not a matter of "privilege". It's simple economics: if the same functionality can be provided more cheaply, that's a gain to everyone. The gain to customers is the most obvious gain, and it's what I focused on in my previous post--but it's also a gain to producers, because it frees up resources to produce other things of value. But the producers have to be willing to change how they make use of resources in order to take advantage of those opportunities.
> I happen to spend quite a bit more time working than shopping.
Then you should be a lot more worried about AI providing the same functionality you were providing as a coder, but more cheaply--because that makes you, or at least you as a coder providing that functionality, a commodity that's no longer worth its cost. So if you want to avoid being commoditized and treated like cattle, you have to change what you produce to something that AI can't do more cheaply than you can.
There are a lot of "probably"s in the article. I was also suspicious that the author didn't say they did any pre measurement runs of the code to ensure that it was warmed up first. Nor did they e.g. use V8 arguments with Node (like --trace-opt) to check what was actually happening.
Thanks for the link, looks promising, even if "no separate extensions" under Known Limitations for the initial release is perhaps a little unfortunate.
Shout out to Vivaldi, which renders RSS feeds with a nice default "card per post" style. Not to mention that it also has a feed reader built in as well.
Isn't ironic that browsers do like 10,000 things nowadays, but Vivaldi (successor to Opera) is the only one that does the handful of things users actually want?
I don't use it myself because my computer is too slow (I think they built it in node.js or something). But it makes me happy that someone is carrying the torch forward...
(Apple's censorship notwithstanding)
reply