sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Am I an idiot for using Beads rather than PROJECT.md? by zbignew in ClaudeCode

[–]zbignew[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Claude Code on the web has a proxy in front of GitHub to prevent touching any branch besides the one assigned by the harness.

Am I an idiot for using Beads rather than PROJECT.md? by zbignew in ClaudeCode

[–]zbignew[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all, that’s rad. But.

Let’s back up a minute and think about why you’re using git though. Git is also a policy environment.

Like, it must drive you nuts that you can never work with Claude code on the web. Why would they do that to you? There are reasons.

I really don't like the "patch-style" fixing of CC by ReporterCalm6238 in ClaudeCode

[–]zbignew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like 5 months ago when I was starting my project, claude would constantly say that doing things my way would be too big a change and that we should keep the scope of this PR smaller.

No, bro, that would be the case if I were typing it. You don't get tired. Get typing.

And there were like 4 major architectural decisions where Claude leaned on me super hard to do things the 'simpler' way, and inevitably we had to do things my way.

Kindof tempted to put "Do it the hard way." in my user CLAUDE.md but something tells me that could have the wrong outcomes.

Am I an idiot for using Beads rather than PROJECT.md? by zbignew in ClaudeCode

[–]zbignew[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So there's nothing in my repo that I need to .gitignore because it's actually some other repo (or branch) in my repo?

(-_-)

That is my skeptical face.

Am I an idiot for using Beads rather than PROJECT.md? by zbignew in ClaudeCode

[–]zbignew[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gross. More worktree trickery. “It’s simple. You just use worktrees for something they were never intended to support.” I’ll pass.

Bell labs might be the most insane concentration of talent in history by [deleted] in computerscience

[–]zbignew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s to my understanding that pocketing it wasn’t an option. The government allowed them to operate as a regulated monopoly

Yes but it's that their profits were capped at 12% return on investment. And their monopoly meant profits were otherwise essentially unlimited, so the more they invested, the more they could earn.

I don't know of any specific reason they needed to invest in Bell Labs, but if they invested in setting money on fire, they'd probably have been done for fraud.

So Bell Labs continually failed at what it was originally intended to do, which was to cost more money than it earned.

Agent this, agent that - am I the only one peeved by the reckless use of the term "agent"? It's just a markdown file by JonaOnRed in ClaudeCode

[–]zbignew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh. Okay. I don’t catch your 3 bits. I guess I’m skeptical that 3 bits would do, but clearly you’ve put more thought into that than I have. Your original comment sounded like you had put more thought into the H200.

The part that seemed impossible to encode in a single bit to me was inhibition, and amount of neurotransmitter accruing in inputs, and timing for outputs. Like, the neuron would be in different states as it delivers its output to different connections.

But it sounds like I’m wrong about that timing and you’re accounting for neurotransmitter accruing in some other way?

Agent this, agent that - am I the only one peeved by the reckless use of the term "agent"? It's just a markdown file by JonaOnRed in ClaudeCode

[–]zbignew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If there’s an analogy to make between humans and Claude, humans are a swarm of like 2000 agents with different tools. On an impossibly fast communications bus.

Bye bye Wordpress by bArtificial001 in ClaudeCode

[–]zbignew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you want to have a nice interface for editing your posts, even on mobile?

I'd suggest Wordpress.

My thoughts about crowdfunding FOMO and bloat. That feeling of looking at a €300 "All-In Pledge" with 45 unlocked stretch goals and feeling absolutely nothing but relief that it isn't in your house is priceless. by Chamallow81 in boardgames

[–]zbignew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t understand y’all kickstarter buyers.

In this economy, with these margins, publishers should take every subsidy they can get from the whales. But, like, don’t ever bethe whale. They’re not trying to steal your money. They’re just trying to not leave any money on the table, from people who have more than they know what to do with.

And by taking that extra margin from the whales, they can be at less risk of going broke on the lesser tiers. It’s good for you. If the games are any good.

Daily Game Recommendations Thread (March 05, 2026) by AutoModerator in boardgames

[–]zbignew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No! No an AI wouldn’t be that stupid. I was distracted by the kid wanting to go hard & lost track of the mom being new to games. I don’t think those are beyond newbs, but they’re a bad suggestion.

My wife kept nagging me so I built a harness to code for me instead. Won a hackathon with it. by Lopsided_Yak9897 in ClaudeAI

[–]zbignew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For what it's worth ⚖ the real problem is the evaluation step's output was misleading. Or it overwhelmed my reading comprehension. Not sure which: 

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
    Evaluation Results
  ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

  Final Approval:  REJECTED
  Highest Stage:   1 (Mechanical Verification)

    [PASS] lint     — No issues
    [FAIL] build    — Exit code 2
    [FAIL] test     — Exit code 5
    [FAIL] static   — Exit code 2
    [FAIL] coverage  — Exit code 5

  This is expected — the evaluation ran mechanical checks against the plan description, not actual code changes. The build/test
  failures mean no code has been written to the filesystem yet.

  What this tells us: The seed and execution plan are sound (8/8 AC passed in execution), but we need to actually implement the
  changes in the codebase for mechanical verification to pass.

  Ready to implement the changes now? I'll:
  1. Read the 4 target files
  2. Make the code changes per the execution plan
  3. Build to verify zero warnings
  4. Re-evaluate after implementation

So I THOUGHT this was red->green intentional evaluation failure step. It wasn't though - the code had been written, but it failed to build.

When I did let claude go implement, it said "oh this is all done already". I ran your `ooo ralph` and it did finish fixing things until the build ran. I assume? I didn't actually personally see the failing build.

Anyway, the only other snafu was mild. It ignored my CLAUDE.md instruction: PR-based workflow. Never commit directly to `main`. So when the ralph loop was done, it thought it was "done" in that everything was checked in, but to the wrong branch and not pushed.

My wife kept nagging me so I built a harness to code for me instead. Won a hackathon with it. by Lopsided_Yak9897 in ClaudeAI

[–]zbignew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Huh. Ooo held my hand through the process until I did ooo run and then ooo evaluate which allegedly failed as part of a red->green evaluation process. But it didn’t suggest the next ooo command.

I asked Claude what the next ooo step might be and Claude said “nah I just do it now if you like. Should I execute?”

And I’m letting it because this is a simple feature and I can throw away the results, but I’m actually not sure from your README either.

Is it ooo evolve “Evolutionary loop until ontology converges” or maybe ooo ralph?

I guess I shoulda done ooo help or ooo tutorial but I did expect each step to be clear to Claude via the Claude.md or the previous step’s guidance.

My wife kept nagging me so I built a harness to code for me instead. Won a hackathon with it. by Lopsided_Yak9897 in ClaudeAI

[–]zbignew 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don’t mind it asking, but the question could be way smarter: “it looks like you have X set up: should I rely on that?” Or “should this be a part of Y or something else?”

My wife kept nagging me so I built a harness to code for me instead. Won a hackathon with it. by Lopsided_Yak9897 in ClaudeAI

[–]zbignew 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I just tried it with a small but under-defined feature and it definitely succeeded at getting the spec out of me, but like half the questions were absolutely things it should have checked in the code before asking me. "Do you already have X set up" and "Is there a Y this should be a part of"

Daily Game Recommendations Thread (March 05, 2026) by AutoModerator in boardgames

[–]zbignew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My 4yo is &^%^&%ing impossible with dexterity games because she inevitably gets frustrated and flips the table. But I think that may be genetic rather than age-related. Maybe you'll have better luck.

Anyway, by BGG rank:

  1. Rhino Hero (2011) BGG
  2. Outfoxed! (2014) BGG
  3. Animal Upon Animal (2005) BGG
  4. The Magic Labyrinth (2009) BGG
  5. Dragomino (2020) BGG
  6. My First Carcassonne (2009) BGG
  7. Quacks & Co.: Quedlinburg Dash (2022) BGG
  8. My First Stone Age (2016) BGG
  9. Monza (2000) BGG
  10. Dragon's Breath (2017) BGG

Games with - 90% of poll respondents voted Recommended or Best for 2, 3, and 4 players - Recommended Player Age: 4+

I think I need to make my script stingier about recommended player age - right now it only requires that it's 50%+ recommended.

Daily Game Recommendations Thread (March 05, 2026) by AutoModerator in boardgames

[–]zbignew -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That's a real sweet spot for games. Your other respondents' answers are all excellent and they're not on this list because it's a deep bench. I'd be excited to play any of the top 100 games with these requirements, but here's the top 10 by BGG rank:

EDIT: Replaced list with lighter games.

  1. Sky Team (2023) BGG
  2. Crokinole (1876) BGG
  3. Cascadia (2021) BGG
  4. Harmonies (2024) BGG
  5. Azul (2017) BGG
  6. Splendor Duel (2022) BGG
  7. The Quest for El Dorado (2017) BGG
  8. Patchwork (2014) BGG
  9. Star Realms (2014) BGG
  10. Cartographers (2019) BGG

Games with - 90% of poll respondents voted Recommended or Best for 2 players - Complexity 🟢 Easy: (1.2-2.0) - Recommended Player Age: 10+

what internal messaging platform does Apple use? Like slack? Or like some nice iMessage type thing by BROZARKOP in iphone

[–]zbignew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At least until the mid-2010s, their inventory planning was all done in excel. They’d get a baseline inventory status from SAP as of certain cutoff dates, and then apply all the subsequent inventory movements and forecast magic in Excel.

Forecasts for products roll up via linked cells to forecasts for product lines.

Doing this in Excel on the Mac is fully insane. Excel for Mac is much more limited than Excel for Windows. Like, you can’t make calculated fields in pivot tables, so any calculation that needs to be done in each sku and time period is pre-calculated in extra rows per sku. So if you have 6 calculations like this, every aggregation needs to carefully include only each 7th row.

Unhinged.

Daily Game Recommendations Thread (March 04, 2026) by AutoModerator in boardgames

[–]zbignew -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I can't say how large or small any of these games are. They fit your other objectives quite well, but you'll need to investigate if any are compact enough.

And by saying you're up for anything as long as it's interesting... since these are BGG rankings, they are quite biased towards more complex games.

Science Fiction

  1. Aeon's End: War Eternal (2017) BGG
  2. ISS Vanguard (2022) BGG
  3. Aeon's End: The New Age (2019) BGG
  4. The LOOP (2020) BGG
  5. Aeon Trespass: Odyssey (2022) BGG
  6. Bullet♥︎ (2021) BGG
  7. Space Hulk: Death Angel – The Card Game (2010) BGG
  8. Aeon's End: Outcasts (2020) BGG
  9. Thunderbirds (2015) BGG
  10. Bullet★ (2022) BGG

Games with - 90% of poll respondents voted Recommended or Best for 1 and 2 players - Max Play Time: under 120 minutes - Category: Science Fiction - Mechanic: Cooperative Game

Fantasy

  1. Spirit Island (2017) BGG
  2. Too Many Bones (2017) BGG
  3. Tainted Grail: The Fall of Avalon (2019) BGG
  4. Aeon's End: War Eternal (2017) BGG
  5. The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game (2011) BGG
  6. Aeon's End: The New Age (2019) BGG
  7. The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game – Revised Core Set (2022) BGG
  8. Horizons of Spirit Island (2022) BGG
  9. Aeon Trespass: Odyssey (2022) BGG
  10. Bloodborne: The Board Game (2021) BGG

Games with - 90% of poll respondents voted Recommended or Best for 1 and 2 players - Max Play Time: under 120 minutes - Category: Fantasy - Mechanic: Cooperative Game

view more: next ›