It's not X, it's Y, not A, not B, not C, and he haven't even woken up yet! Here's the catch, the detail is in the devils and the twist is that it's designed!

You're right to call this out, and what's more, it's not even solving the original problem. I overlooked this in pursuit of the load-bearing seams and finding the wedge needed to uptick engagement.

You're half right, but the half where you're wrong is hiding the real unlock.

Here's the X that Ys the Z:

The best ideas are usually the simplest to elaborate. If someone comes up with a convoluted scheme that are hard to understand or be adequately explained, it's usually fraud.

When claude speak in convoluted mess, they are often going off on tangents in real work that you asked it to do, too.

That believes that the world can be simplified into dichotomies, or at least, simplified. Sometimes problems are complex, and the solutions to them necessarily so. For example, cancer. I order to begin to understand that problem, you have to understand the utter complex scheme it has devised in order to exist. A 20 minute YouTube video isn't going to be able to begin to cover the basics of the subject, although there are some good ones, with clever analogies.

Just because something is difficult to understand doesn't mean it's fraud, although if someone is trying to dazzle you with clever words and names of institutions you recognize because they are selling you something, there's a good chance they're lying to you in order to get some money from you.

No but almost all good ideas can be reduced down to a few sentences if you're good at explaining things. It's a different kind of intelligence than what's commonly called IQ but it's something like that regardless.

Sure the explanation will oversimplify a lot but then you can expand it recursively if needed, you gotta start somewhere.

Problems can be holistically complex but the building blocks of those problem usually aren't.

If the presenter can't divide a problem until it reaches a series of independently simple concepts, then there's usually something fishy going on.

Too simplistic view which I also used to believe in maybe ~10 years ago. There's a class of problems where such approach doesn't apply.

I agree with you in that there exist such a class of problems, but Occam's razor apply in far more circumstances than it does not. When confronted with novel information under pressure of quick decisions, you have to take the most likely correct path.

> That believes that the world can be simplified into dichotomies, or at least, simplified. Sometimes problems are complex, and the solutions to them necessarily so. For example, cancer

You just simplified most of the problems people work on down to cancer complexity. Ironic, isn't it?

That's also simply not the case, most people are building CRUD apps with some frontend code and some accessory stuff like build systems etc., which while complex, can still be expressed in very plain, easy to understand language for anyone who's a bit technical.

Does not excuse the Claude slop.

If you are saying that there are problems more complex in this world than cancer to be solved, I'm not denying you.

Solving the problem right in front of you is easy. Stepping back and asking: is that a problem to be solved, is infinitely harder.

I did not use Claude to write my comment, so I don't know where that is coming from.

I meant the explanation does not excuse Claude's slop prose, not your comment.

I'd say you only pay 10% of the cost when you finish/launch the re-written software. The other 90% of cost comes later in the format of operations, deprecation and migration, people both users and devs, community friction and learning cost.

And that 90% could be an underestimate here.

I think in time people will realize harness is essentially a more complicated .vimrc or .zshrc;

And yes, you can install gigantic plugins in those places - e.g. Codex; but the point is everyone will have exactly what they have customized towards. The more atomic a building block is, the easier it can be adapted into any kind of configuration.

I think the pain of selling a harness is if your target market understand what a harness is, then they can build it to exactly how they'd like it without much effort. If they don't, then the harness wouldn't be very useful to them in the first place.

This looks like colloquial mandarin translated to english word for word.

This is almost exactly how mandarin is spoken in colloquial communication, context is almost always omitted if provided once, and grammar/tense is mostly non-existent either. Check out Singlish for something similar but understandable if you are not a mandarin speaker.

Paper trades are more lenient afaik? You won't run into actual transaction problems particularly when market fluctuates by the milliseconds.

One of the biggest reason I migrated to Codex. I'd like to see each agentic CLI process as a simple building block, and having 100 claude session means I sometimes run out of memory (and I have 256GB of them). Codex never have this problem.

The communication is more direct too with GPT5.6 family of LLM. No more belt and suspenders.

It seems like they tried to remove guidance from multi-agent system. And I think it's going to fare as well as removal of guidance from single-agent interactions.

In my experience, no matter how many agent runs for a single goal, one of the pre-requisite is clear and concise communication so that LLM are left with as little freedom in the matter of arbitrary choices, or "taste". When they are given too much choices in this regard, the outcome almost invariably bad.

I think this has to do with LLM lacking in purpose - a dictionary and encyclopedia can have all the worlds knowledge but it is completely neutral. A reflection of your commands from an LLM is similar to a lookup process despite it can be made to "do things". This purpose is likely not something that can be given to the LLM in the current format.