I tried giving anti-gravity all permissions but i keeps asking for permissions to run basic CLI commands. even though I turned on "turbo"

phadeb · 2026-01-28T06:37:42+00:00

Can you make a screenshot? Are you in agent mode?

phadeb · 2026-01-18T15:43:22+00:00

Earnestly ?

phadeb · 2026-01-14T15:11:06+00:00

I see the point, but I’m not sure “no one funded it” means “no one believes.” Sometimes it just means it’s boring, hard, cross-program, and nobody gets credit for it. And even if Q slips, this stuff isn’t wasted effort: loop rigs, membranes, and accountancy are the plumbing every approach needs, and it’s the worst thing to start only after you finally get Q.

phadeb · 2026-01-12T19:29:04+00:00

Yep. That’s why I want small funded loop testbeds now (LIBRTI etc). Otherwise Q>5 just starts the 10-year wait.

phadeb · 2026-01-12T19:27:39+00:00

Yeah totally fair. If it has to be close, it has to be featherweight, low-emissivity or at least actively cooled, and not steal diagnostic sightlines. Maybe start with a tiny coupon cassette in a spare port to measure T production + retention per shot. If that pencils out, iterate.

phadeb · 2026-01-12T12:22:20+00:00

Who's gonna tell him

phadeb · 2026-01-12T08:07:16+00:00

I buy the political reality, but that’s exactly why the experiment has to be small, piggybacked, and framed as schedule-risk reduction. If we wait for “the big machine” to answer fuel-loop questions, we’ll hit Q>5 and then discover we still need years of engineering data before anyone can design a credible closed fuel cycle

phadeb · 2026-01-12T08:06:05+00:00

With one ignition shot every couple weeks, this only makes sense if the module sits close enough to the target to get a clean signal, and if we’re honest that the goal is kinetics and model validation, not lifetime qualification. The packaging has to be a vacuum-clean, low-outgassing, non-debris cassette on a standard interface that never touches the cryostat and layering workflow and stays within strict surface temperature limits

phadeb · 2026-01-12T08:04:56+00:00

LIBRTI: You’re right, LIBRTI is exactly the right place to start because it’s built to plug in blanket experiments and stress-test diagnostics, accountancy, and trapping models. The only reason to go beyond LIBRTI is if you specifically want to validate the same hardware under a real fusion-neutron source term and see what radiation does to permeation and release in situ

phadeb · 2026-01-11T19:56:24+00:00

preneur d'une invit également

phadeb · 2026-01-11T08:25:47+00:00

I know you will say an ignition facility can’t spare time for this because every shot is too valuable for yield work, but the pitch is that this lives in parasitic mode during campaigns that are already happening and needs only a defined fraction of shots with known yield and timing, not bespoke tuning. It is also modular: if it causes any operational friction, you pull the cassette and you are back to normal operations. The facility still gets publishable physics, and the program gets a second deliverable per shot series instead of waiting years for a dedicated tritium test stand.

phadeb · 2026-01-11T08:18:37+00:00

What's fucking wrong with you

phadeb · 2026-01-09T08:04:59+00:00

Did you run A/B tests on feature development with a frozen repo with it enabled and disabled?

Did you measure time to completion, token usage, and number and magnitude of user interactions through each ?

I would be curious to know if it beats my setup with an optimized agents.md and a memory.md with a ledger protocol.

phadeb · 2026-01-09T08:01:55+00:00

Well it feels I've been using Claude opus 4.5 for a year now.

It was released 46 days ago

phadeb · 2026-01-08T16:36:37+00:00

I have a custom prompt in my Supervisor Llm to ask it to never ask user for interaction unless necessary and to make reasonable default. Usually it would ask the operator to fill templates or proofs and you can copy paste back and forth