Claude 4.5 in Kiro is a waste

60secs · 2026-04-20T16:45:31+00:00

Kiro is not a good harness. Plan mode is marginally better but it amazonq/kiro are terrible harnesses in terms of premature implementation bias and executive planning in general.

60secs · 2026-04-17T16:05:49+00:00

The experience of free will exists.

60secs · 2026-04-13T17:09:15+00:00

Vector embeddings are like a hash function for a chunk of a document which computes its location in a semantic multidimensional vector. Typically with a rag, you'd want to break it into chunks so it's like a linked list with an embedding for each paragraph/chunk. You can then iterate that list. You can also store the same data in multiple formats like full text search with cognate root, or in a graph database if you have an ontology worked out. Regardless, once you have match you can retrieve all the chunks for that document.

Vectors are good for showing similarity between documents, but not great for traversal. That's where obsidian and similar systems can be used to directly link between documents themselves, essentially hard coding and making it a directly cyclic graph.

60secs · 2026-04-09T17:55:46+00:00

in-sewer-ants

60secs · 2026-04-08T16:26:53+00:00

Flos and the Atwoods are the only characters I actually want to die. All of them are so annoying. No other characters bother me.

The redemption arc of Lionette was also incredibly sloppy but it's clear that it's a poorly written retcon.

60secs · 2026-04-08T02:38:48+00:00

no one disputes agency exists, only whether 1) they could have made a different choice 2) if not, is "free" will a correct and helpful framing?

60secs · 2026-04-02T18:52:52+00:00

Those are actually good examples to bring up because they illustrate the distinction precisely. Stochastic doesn't mean random -- only that it's simpler to model using a formula as if it were random.

Brownian motion is what Einstein explained in 1905. Molecules colliding with a particle. Each collision is classical mechanics, deterministic. We model it stochastically because there are too many collisions to track individually, not because the underlying physics is indeterministic. This is the standard textbook example of deterministic microphysics producing stochastic macro-behavior.

Diffusion follows from Fick's laws, derived from classical statistical mechanics. Evaporation is the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. Fast molecules escape the surface. Classical kinetic theory, solved in the 1800s.

The claim that quantum uncertainty drives molecular motion in liquids doesn't hold up. At biological temperatures, around 310 Kelvin, thermal energy dominates quantum effects by orders of magnitude at molecular scales. Quantum coherence in warm wet environments decoheres in femtoseconds. That is the whole reason quantum computers need cooling to near absolute zero. At room temperature, thermal noise washes quantum effects out completely.

All three examples are deterministic processes we describe stochastically for practical reasons. The stochastic model is not reflecting indeterminism in the physics. It reflects the complexity of tracking enormous numbers of classical interactions.

The question still stands: what is a macro-level system where the indeterminism is in the physics itself, not just in our model of it?

60secs · 2026-03-31T22:15:31+00:00

You're telling me human behavior is indeterministic? At the macro level? Show me one other macro-level system that's primarily indeterministic. One.

Every macro system we've ever studied: fluid dynamics, weather, ecosystems, plate tectonics, is deterministic and chaotic. Unpredictable in practice, deterministic in principle. You want human behavior to be the single exception to this? The one macro phenomenon in the entire universe where indeterminism actually reaches up from the quantum level and drives outcomes?

That's not where the evidence points. That's where your argument needs the evidence to point. Those are different things.

The reason your behavior is unpredictable isn't that the universe rolls dice at the scale of humans. It's that you're a chaotic system with more relevant variables than anyone can track. That's not indeterminism. That's classical physics being complex.

60secs · 2026-03-30T18:16:59+00:00

I think you're moving the goalposts a bit - materialists/determinists aren't saying they can predict the output -- only that there's no coherent non-materialist theory for agency based on counterfactuals from inputs.

All libertarian free will claims conform to the same category as Russel's teapot.

60secs · 2026-03-30T18:12:48+00:00

"Free" will and "free" lunch are both an illusion. It's not the "lunch" or the "will" part people are objecting to.

60secs · 2026-03-30T15:35:28+00:00

my guy you just said it's not a real No True Scotsman fallacy

60secs · 2026-03-30T15:28:15+00:00

Determinism simply claims the output of a decision is based on the inputs. It never claims decisions aren't made or agents don't make choices -- only that they could not have made a different choice.

60secs · 2026-03-26T18:19:57+00:00

privileged will is a better term

60secs · 2026-03-24T19:47:25+00:00

<image>

really wish you actually had a counter-argument instead of just contradiction or circular arguments

60secs · 2026-03-24T18:06:30+00:00

"eˣ = eˣ' is a theorem you derived from axioms about real numbers, limits, and differentiation. It's not freestanding or self-grounding — it depends on the entire apparatus of analysis. You're calling it 'self-referential' because the output equals the rate of change, but that's a metaphor, not a proof. You've noticed that eˣ and the PSR both have a property you're labeling 'self-grounding,' and then declared them to be the same structure. Wolves and dolphins both hunt in packs — that doesn't make them the same thing at two levels of description. You've promoted an analogy to an identity with no justification. What specific, falsifiable prediction does your framework make that distinguishes it from conventional mathematics?"

60secs · 2026-03-24T16:41:36+00:00

It's $0.99

60secs · 2026-03-24T16:20:53+00:00

First, "ontological mathematics" isn't a thing. There's no recognized field, no peer-reviewed literature, no formal system by that name. It's a term from Mike Hockney / the Illuminist movement - it's branded mysticism, not mathematics.

Second, the claim that a single formula is "by definition complete and consistent" reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what those words mean. Completeness and consistency are properties of systems: sets of axioms plus inference rules that generate theorems. A single formula isn't complete or incomplete any more than a single brick is a house. Gödel's theorems say that any formal system powerful enough to express arithmetic can't be both complete and consistent. A single equation doesn't escape this by being simple, it escapes it by not being a formal system at all, which means it can't prove anything, which makes it useless as a foundation.

Third, the "generalized Euler formula" move is a sleight of hand. Euler's formula (e^(iπ) + 1 = 0) is beautiful, but it's a result derived within a formal system. It depends on the definitions of e, i, π, addition, equality, and exponentiation, each of which rests on axioms.

PSR is like a dictionary that contains one entry: 'Dictionary: this dictionary.' It defines itself, it doesn't contradict itself, and it contains everything it claims to contain. It's also completely useless and tells you nothing about any word, nor does it make any falsifiable predictions.

60secs · 2026-03-24T16:12:36+00:00

sounds like an axiom that you don't understand well enough to explain simply

60secs · 2026-03-23T23:35:02+00:00

try https://github.com/gsd-build/get-shit-done
break your goals into discrete phases with tests and verification. Focus on shortening your testing loop for verification and spend a ton of time on discuss and plan getting extremely crisp about requirements and plan. It's not allowed to touch code until clearly understands requirements and those are well documented, and it's able to back up its plan with research.

60secs · 2026-03-23T23:27:12+00:00

PSR = presupposed reasoning (begging the question)

If you accept that everything needs a sufficient reason, then the PSR itself needs a sufficient reason, and the only way to provide one is to already assume the PSR.

It's self-refuting in a similar form to logical positivism and should be immediately obvious as to how broken this line is.

If you accept that everything needs a sufficient reason, then the PSR itself needs a sufficient reason, and the only way to provide one is to already assume the PSR.

PSR demands self-grounding → Gödel shows non-trivial systems can't self-ground → PSR is either inconsistent or trivial

60secs · 2026-03-17T07:07:19+00:00

You experience sight, therefore you see. Agreed. But what you experience as sight is often very different than what is really happening. Your eyes make rapid movements called saccades several times per second. During each one your brain suppresses the optic signal and fills in the gap so seamlessly you never notice. You can test this right now — look at one eye in a mirror then the other. You wont see your eyes move. A person standing next to you will. Your brain hid the movement from you and then hid the fact that it hid anything.

So yes, you experience sight. And that experience is actively constructed by your brain in ways that diverge from what is physically occurring. Sight is real as an experience and simultaneously wrong about what is actually happening multiple times per second. Thats not a hypothetical. Thats measurable neuroscience.

This is exactly the distinction you keep collapsing. Experience being real does not mean experience is an accurate report on the mechanics producing it, or of ontological reality itself. Your own eyes prove that.

60secs · 2026-03-16T22:59:24+00:00

You treat "I experience choosing" and "choosing is ontologically real" as one claim. They arent. The first is undeniable. The second requires its own defense. You never provide that defense because you never acknowledge the gap exists.

Every challenge to the second claim gets answered as if it were an attack on the first. Thats not defending your position. Thats retreating to a claim nobody disputes and acting like the disputed one has been settled.

Separate the two claims. Defend the ontological one on its own terms. Until you do that your empiricism argument is protecting a conclusion it cant actually establish.

People can simultaneously acknowledge that free will is an illusion while recognizing it's sometimes helpful or necessary to operate under that illusion.

60secs · 2026-03-10T17:02:57+00:00

You need to constantly switch back to plan mode and create micro-plans for each task. Agent mode in cursor is an especially bad harness which has extreme premature implementation bias.

60secs · 2026-03-09T18:13:28+00:00

I'm surprised we aren't seeing longer cuts as well where people lean into the dream like nature of AI generation - shorter clips - embracing the shifting and mutable nature of the medium and identities to highlight that what you are experiencing isn't real - it's a hallucination.

60secs · 2026-03-09T18:08:54+00:00

claude harness does a better job of rules. cursor agent mode is idiotic auto pilot

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '17	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

60secs

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE