There's a qualitative difference to me. Categorising Stardew Valley the same way as Cyberpunk because they both receive content updates feels unfair to Stardew Valley (because the continual content updates for the latter come from a place of respect to the community, while the former comes from overpromising and under-delivering).
But if this is your rubric, and you find an audience that finds value from this rubric, I don't mean to denigrate your work here!
The article contains 31 references. Of course, no report on the _general_ market trends are going to cover every anecdote in the US. It could be that the staples you mentioned aren't affected to the same degree. How about your non-staples? How about cars? Houses? Vacation expenses?
In fact, your comment could be read as the exception that proves the rule: you haven't been affected by rising costs because you stick to staples and avoid "frivolous" purchases (that is, you live frugally, as suggested by the article).
Energy stands out as actually being noteworthy, but is not discussed in the article compared to food, consumer goods. It is pretty inelastic for most people, especially gas/diesel.
I've noticed that most people seem to consider the core problem of Claude's output as "too verbose" but I don't think this actually cuts to the heart of the matter at all. It's almost, in some weird way, the opposite: like the text is far too _dense_. It tries too hard to invent odd terminology to try to condense stuff, but it doesn't tell you up front that it is going to call your company wide error-handling mechanism a "flare" (or some other such strange term).
Kind of both. On the one hand, it is “verbose” in the sense that it will tell me every little nit that it can think of while doing a task, it will tell me a narrative about its thought process, and it will tell me every other detail it can think of. But it does so in a way that tries to be incredibly dense to the point that I have to struggle to figure out what it is saying. I wonder if there are any “legibility benchmarks” that one could use to determine what prompts work best?
I find it to be both as well, as in "packed full of information, but most of it is worthless". Sentences so dense I have to read them three times, assembled into a five paragraph essay of "honest caveats" and "things worth knowing" in response to the simplest yes-or-no questions.
I wish this had non-model comparisons. If Opus 5 is in the top ten, it’s clear that the entire benchmark is somewhere between “Tom Clancy” and “Dan Brown” and about 1,000 new model releases away from Hemingway.
When you see, “Wow, Fable is number one”, you might think it’s a good writer, but that’s not what the benchmark says.
There are no "best" prompts. Its a random BS generation machine that you can at times direct enough to get stuff done for you. The output will almost always have varying levels of BS that you have to clean up with various levels of effort.
Yeah I don't the problem is verbosity as such, as I frequently have to ask to explain how it reached a certain conclusion and in particular what the empirical evidence for it is, at which point it too frequently reconsiders its answer.
It's just that the details it parrots are often irrelevant and wrapped in a way that makes them seem relevant.
Human explaining something: are you familiar with phlox gabrania? no? let me give you some background first
Claude explaining something: gedarkin load bearing phlox gabrania seam. Also, you didn't ask about cheesecake but let me tell you about phlox gabrania cheesecake woles.
my hypothesis is that its trying to hide the thinking process so people can't train models on the output, try to learn anything complex using AI, its basically imposible, its like its actively fighting giving you the main rationale
I recommend folks here read "The Dreamt Land" by Mark Arax. I just started it so it might be a premature recommendation, but it has been doing a great job for me as a new California resident of explaining the interaction between business/agriculture and the desert landscape.
Really glad you liked it! I use an absurd amount of redshift personally, and have spent too much time thinking about / working on light-and-color related projects, so it came out of a place of need and love alike.
But still we are much better at estimating complexity
Time estimations usually tends to be overly optimistic. I don’t know why. Maybe the desire to please the PO. Or the fact that we never seem to take into account factors such as having a bad day, interruptions, context switch.
T-shirt sizes or even story points are way more effective.
The PO can later translate it to time after the team reaches certain velocity.
I have been developing software for over twenty years, I still suck at giving time estimates.
Time estimations, or conversations to days or other units, typically fail because if a developer says 1 day they might mean 8 focused uninterrupted development hours while someone else hears 1 calendar day so it can be done by tomorrow, regardless of if a developer spends 8 or 16 hours on it.
Yes, I've seen this too in sprint planning. However, the layer of indirection I think is helpful. If you use actual time, then when something isn't done after 1 week when that was the estimate, then bosses are asking why. If your estimate was simply "8 story points", then the bosses can't point to a calendar and complain. They can try to argue that an 8-point task should be done in a week, but then you and the scrummaster remind him that points don't map directly to time, just effort.
But if this is your rubric, and you find an audience that finds value from this rubric, I don't mean to denigrate your work here!
reply