I just skipped to a random part, 41:47, where the speaker is talking about the chasm of the old and the new, the before and the after, and our acceptance of the new status quo.

These match my own thoughts exactly. As much as I don't love them, I agree with the speaker.

For Factorio players: we used to live in Nauvis. It was beautiful but sparse. Then we outgrew it and unwittingly found ourselves on Fulgora. It is abundant but trashy.

And just like in a game, the rules changed and we adapt. That's what makes the game fun. Granted, that it's all our livelihoods on the line (very high stakes), but all things being equal, we have new challenges in front of us that we can either bemoan or accept.

> The hard part of software becomes ... user-interface design.

Seems to undercut some of its own claims, the idea that we need to design interfaces for end users is already antiquated.

Yeah the homepage toplines are pure vibeslop, they didn't even bother touching their own homepage. Trust is instantly vacated. Next.

I know we're all experiencing NDFSMs differently, like that's part of the whole problem, but 5.5 just gave me "The truncating quantizer collides two oranges", which is a new low for me.

Was it a true statement though? You may need to explain what you were working on (heh)

These claudisms are usually "true" but they are so heavily load-bearing that you need a claude-to-english dictionary to understand it.

Like the sibling comment says, text is always "true" in the sense that it's reacting to context correctly. So yes, true, but insufferable.

Ironically, what I'm working on a post-processing hook for colorizing and summarizing responses without degrading the session quality. So "truncating" = summarizing, "quantizer" = char limits and thresholds, "collides" = conflicts, "two oranges" is referring to the "alert level colors" where a second model (Haiku/Sonnet) colorizes text based on the perceived (or suggested) priority of a response's statements (e.g. "just so you're aware, I didn't commit" is fucking useless and it needs to be blacked out).

So the original insufferable statement translates to something like "The code that checks whether a text fragment is too verbose was conflicting with the part that colorizes the text."

P.S. Let me know if there's something out there that exists like this- something that adds a dimension like color or priority-assessments on a per-response basis. So far all I've seen is 2 dozen ~100k starred GitHub plugins that add zero value or make things worse.

Yep, sounds like the Opus I despise and the reason I dropped Claude Code. It reads like it doesn't want to be understood.

If anything it seems worse. I'm experiencing about -10% insufferable jargon, but +30% more verbosity. It's unredeemable. There also seems to be even less structured output (headings, bullets, etc).

I agree that OpenRouter kinda sucks, but it took about 15 seconds to see that a few sentences got reverse-compressed into what is now this article, and it's slop.

> For an agent TAU is the score that matters and a 20 point swing is not noise.

+1, stuff like this is a big turnoff for reading

The [content-based] trust layer of the internet is what we have deferred to this point, and what needs to be created (which is easier said than done, of course).

Personally I think a web-of-trust Keybase-style solution could work... But buy-in is difficult... you'd need some sort of "seed" strategy to make the app useful alack of 100 (a huge number) trusted friends.

That does indeed seem like LLM text to me, which makes a depressing article even morning depressing. Inauthentic and hypocritical.

I'd like to give the author the benefit of the doubt, but since we've set all ourselves on being cynical....

Jesus christ, the lack of self awareness is all so depressing. These Sisyphuses have doomed themselves to making NDFSMs deterministic.

brain have thought -> brain tell claude -> claude make shiny thing -> ooh shiny -> show fellow monkeys, look, I have shiny!

Saying "more" seems generous. I don't trust Pangram at all, and I also don't trust the author at all. Both can be trustless charletans simultaneously, and I feel this speaks volumes about the state of digital media today.