wouldn't that burn the capability rather quickly though?
195 karma · joined October 20, 2025
for supporting evidence, see first chart here: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-fable-5-mythos-5
i disagree, but it seems clear, from how you put it, that there's no point explaining the why
let me try that style
1. it's not *just vanity* if it feeds into *rtk*'s pitch. it's the hook, it's meant to convince users, *rtk* will reduce token waste.
2. OP's article is not spreading fear, uncertainty, or doubt. at best it disputes *rtk*'s claims that it is effective in reducing token waste, and it does so directly with the question: "Where Are the Accuracy Benchmarks?"
3. a) *beep* - you are disqualified for failing to identify the *burden of proof* obligation lies with *rtk*, not OP; b) OP made no claims, except for the ones you conveniently dismiss — the github issues. furthermore the "reason[s] to believe that the thousands of devs using rtk are silently tanking their performance without noticing" was already answered. you missed it because you couldn't see past the joy of having your pull-request recently merged.
4. really, you were so disturbed by the article, you couldn't even ignore the *one* non-technical point, in an article *you choose* to interpret as being technical — all of it being your own fault. nevermind how relevant it is as a signal for the effectiveness of such technics.
5. is it inherent? are we doomed to live with broken tool outputs? note, the issue, here, is not that *rtk* will fail when output changes, *that* is inherent to *rtk*'s current implementation — as i understand it, but that "it will fail quietly, feeding corrupted or partial text to your agent".
you were so close to getting it here:
> instead of reporting that SOMEONE SHOULD MEASURE THIS, you could, you know, measure it yourself
but hey, thanks for getting me to take another look at rtk & co., i am now further convinced these are just the flavor of the month tricks for speed running context rot
you're right, in case law exchange of considerations matters, and licenses are treated as rights grants. however, civil law does not care about considerations, and use of the object implies consent.
but that is irrelevant to our thread, because whether you breach the terms of the contract, or violate the terms of the rights grant, the different legal systems seem to have arrived at the same conclusion: it is copyright infringement
> Regardless, contracts are not required for reliance interest to apply.
was hoping that including "some other evidence" would be enough to avoid that comment
you can wait for a reply from tptacek later in the day, or use the search at the bottom to find previous replies
here: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=tptacek%20iq%20test&sort=byDat...
> I fundamentally disagree that maintainers owe users nothing.
> I strongly believe that when you create something for people to use that there’s an implicit social contract about how to go about doing certain things.
do you realize how unhinged this all reads like?
there is no duty. nothing is owed to no one. there is no implicit anything. this is all happening in your head. you are making up things that don't exist. the social contract is not a real thing either. the only contract you can have with the author of rsync is the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, and then, only when you get a copy of rsync.
> getting frustrated and then changing the project to delete the entire system is a crime
boop: strawman argument — you have been disqualified
> Is any business built on top of rsync going to donate their money in a sustainable manner?
does it matter? do you have an invoice for rsync?
the author wrote it themselves, he is retired, and sailing. unless google is buying him a new boat, i doubt he gives a crap what anyone has to offer.
truly obscene is the fabricated idea that you are owed anything after downloading code from github.
> I am also unsure of what to do here either.
touch grass?
anyway, to the gist of this reply: you disagree with the license conditions. an important, but rather obvious, observation to be had is that, the rights the LICENSE offers, are contingent on your acceptance of the LICENSE conditions. one cannot be had without the other.
the LICENSE is real, it's a contract, and is in effect the moment you obtain a copy.
> You can’t [un-]license your way out [of the] liability if you [copied], formally or informally, [wares] that [you have no rights to, because you disagreed with its license conditions].
any other feature being compatible between harnesses makes transitioning from one to another too easy
so, the only way memory will work, similar to {AGENTS,CLAUDE}.md, is if everyone uses: base path + markdown files
anyone who's, even slightly, clued into how agents access documentation, has been making changes to their pages. ex: https://searchtxt-web.fly.dev/search?q=aws
https://developers.openai.com/llms.txt
https://docs.anthropic.com/llms.txt
https://geminicli.com/llms.txt
https://github.com/llms.txt
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/llms.txt
https://openrouter.ai/docs/llms.txtyou're it does not.
> Most of these have no relation to each other other than the high level services on the cloud providers.
so, some of them are related to each other? some of them even share underlying infrastructure? perhaps multiple of these are considered infrastructure for some teams?
what is the point you're trying to make?