Tailwind's philosophy is that you must not use CSS facilities at all and instead all their utility classes should be inlined into the HTML soup.
This leaves framework components as the only abstraction boundary, but that means if you're writing plain HTML without a framework there's literally no way to standardize your design system.
That and the huge soup of classes in DOM is (part of why) I don't like Tailwind... but that ship sailed a long time ago.
You can, but it goes against Tailwind's philosophy. It used to be explicitly discouraged here[0] (see this 2022 GH comment[1]), but now they just don't mention it.
You previously asserted that devs repeatedly ignored specific code quality instructions, which is clearly a fireable offense. You're now generalizing out to a vague concept of "sloppy code", which is not even quantifiable.
In any case, the point is that low quality code shouldn't be promoted as the acceptable goal for AI.
Am I the only one whose experience doesn't match this?
My gripe with Claude is that while investigating how to do this it will report 200 other incidental findings which I overlooked and I realize those are broken too and need urgent fixing, derailing me, not it.
Oh man, exactly. I'm very prone to scope creep as I work on tasks. I already would notice some things that could be fixed or refactored and have a hard time not touching them before I used agents. But now I have to be very intentional about not letting it manipulate me into fixing EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW. Half the time the "one more thing worth noting, unrelated..." isn't even an actual issue, it just brought it up to fish more usage out of me.
Also, while this little demo is certainly exaggerating the issue, I do find working with Claude to sometimes get quite verbose and tiresome. I doubt I would struggle this much to get it to change a button color, but the patterns of speech, the endless lists, the over-explanations, and the whole song and dance of trying to get it to make the change you want without side-effects is frustratingly familiar to me.
> I am still not able to recognize a sound and understand what note that is
That is called "perfect pitch" and it is not necessary to play music. It's very rare to have perfect pitch, and it seems to be innate, not something you learn.
Contextual note recognition (relative pitch) is what musicians normally use to jam. It comes with practice and contextual clues that you pick up over tens of years (including familiarity with your jammate's instrument, even if it's not the one you play; familiarity with multiple eras of music theory; pure practice), so this shouldn't be your #1 priority since it just comes along for free (or a bit of practice), as you learn. Music playing 101 is just... playing music in your instrument. You don't need to recognize notes until you want to jam, which comes years after you start playing an instrument.
Some people seem to just be physically unable to distinguish relative pitch though.
You might want to start here: https://www.musictheory.net/ (not affiliated, I just think it's a very good resource for Music Theory 101).
Isn't perfect pitch just when you can tell a note without having a reference tone?
Once you have a point of reference things just go up and down and from there it should be manageable to identify each note.
Also, not sure about the innate thing. Seems to me that it's just a neural pathway that can be created by playing or listening to a whole lot of music while being aware of which tone is which, for example by reading the score alongside.
Perfect pitch is quite debated. What we know is that: 1) Most people with perfect pitch have it mostly on their main instrument, and they translate the pitch in their inner ear if they hear a different instrument, and 2) Many with perfect pitch report that it gets less reliable with age.
There seems to be many different ways of having perfect pitch. For example, some singers may connect it more to the physical sensation of applying tension to their vocal cords (so they have to be singing the pitch or imagine singing it to be able to tell). For others it's purely auditive.
I definitely think that's a bridge to gap, but MCP is not the answer. OSes currently lack the tools to do this properly, but I hope they will improve. Agents need more granular sandboxing in all areas.
> Someone tested this, and it doesn't look to be saturated.
They could still pelicanmaxxing but the RL for "pelican riding a bicycle" does incidentally improve "<animal> <verb> <vehicle>".
Or they could've predicted someone would check if they're pelicanmaxxing or the benchmark would switch eventually, so they preemptively RL'd a mixture of animals and vehicles.
This was me as well. +HCU and searchlores.org were so much fun. The coolest thing I remember was the hash-maze but I couldn't find it again. I saw Fravia live in 1999 :D
Switching 0x74 to 0x75 and vise versa lead to me ordering the free Intel books and diving into assembly and osdev for a while. There was something zen-like wading through disassembled code with a complete beginner mind and looking for patterns. This and reading Phrack around the "Smashing the Stack for Fun and Profit" times are probably my favorite memories related to computing because I only had a very vague understanding of what was going on mixed with a sense of "wait you can do this" and a lack of readily available information.
reply