Huppie

> MyVisualRoutine ...

> All apps i found were either shit, real shit, or didnt solve my personal need.

Wow, what an amazing coincidence. I made something that looks pretty similar from the looks of it just a few weeks ago because I found the same thing. If I knew your app existed I probably wouldn't have made it. I wasn't even thinking of selling it, just made it for my kid because it makes following various daily routines easier.

It's a mostly vibe coded (well, I made tons of visual and technical decisions but didn't look at the code much except some spot checks) PWA that can run offline on an iPod Touch.

It has some quirks and hidden features for day schedules, timers, etc.

There's plenty of yank in there (yours is almost certainly built better) but it works pretty well for most daily routines.

You can check it out here: https://girls-routine-planner.huppie.nl/

I was actually in the feedback form a few days (just to leave a quick rant what an absolute mess this 'liquid glass' iOS-update is after I sadly chose to update...)

And look what happens, it turns out if you switch app-focus and go back to the app (now immediately focused on the text input) your on-screen keyboard becomes pretty much unreadable (white on light grey...)

The feedback is probably going straight to the bin but I couldn't help myself to file a second bug with a screenshot from the first feedback submission with a broken keyboard.

Screenshot of this absolute disaster: https://imgur.com/a/CyXiVy2

I have the same. While it's a bit jarring the first time you see it, I now consider this a feature instead of a bug.

Maybe it could be styled a bit differently so the search bar is more prominent and in the center of the screen, but just having a search bar without any distractions is a fantastic feature.

Yeah, I kinda like the method siscia suggests downthread [0] where the teacher grades based on the question they ask the LLMs during the test.

I think you should be able to use the LMM at home to help you better understand the topic (they have endless patience and you can usually you can keep asking until you actually grok the topic) but during the test I think it's fair to expect that basic understanding to be there.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46043012

I real life if someone with an administrative job would jot 50 * 3,000 in a calculator and not notice the answer 1,500,000 is wrong (a typo) I will consider them most definitely at fault. Similarly I know some structural engineers who will notice something went wrong with the input if an answer is not within a given range.

A calculator can be used to do things you know how to do _faster_ imho but in most jobs it still requires you to at least somewhat understand what is happening under the hood. The same principle applies to using LLMs at work imho. You can use it to do stuff you know how to do faster but if you don't understand the material there's no way you can evaluate the LLMs answer and you will be at fault when there's AI slop in your output.

eta: Maybe it would be possible to design labs with LLM's in such a way that you teach them how to evaluate the LLM's answer? This would require them to have knowledge of the underlying topic. That's probably possible with specialized tools / LLM prompts but is not going to help against them using a generic LLM like ChatGPT or a cheating tool that feeds into a generic model.

I know a teacher who basically only does open questions but since everything is digital nowadays students just use tools like Cluely [0] that run on the background and provide answers.

Since the testing tool they use does notice and register 'paste'-events they've resorted to simply assigning 0 points to every answer that was pasted.

A few of us have been telling her to move to in-class testing etc. but like you also notice everything in the school organization pushes for teaching productivity so this does require convincing management / school board etc. which is a slow(er) process.

[0] https://cluely.com/

Oxide and Friends recently had a podcast episode [0] with Michael Littman about this topic for anyone who's curious about this topic.

This topic has been an interesting part of the discourse in a group of friends the past few weeks because one of us is a teacher who has to deal with this on an almost daily basis and is struggling to get her students to not cheat and the options available to her are limited (yes, physical monitoring would probably work but requires concessions from the school management etc. it's not something that has an easy or quick fix available.)

[0] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/ai-in-highe...

I was evaluating codex vs claude code the past month and GPT 5.1 codex being slow is just the default experience I had with it.

The answers were mostly on par (though different in style which took some getting used to) but the speed was a big downer for me. I really wanted to give it an honest try but went back to Claude Code within two weeks.

How is it compared to Cursur though?

While it's of course a good thing to be critical the author did provide some more context on the why and how of doing it with LLM's on the hard fork podcast today [0]: mostly as a way to see how these models _can_ help them with these tasks.

I would recommend listening to their explanation, maybe it'll give more insight.

Disclosure: After listening the podcast and looking up and reading the article I emailed @dang to suggest it goes into the HN second chance pool. I'm glad more people enjoyed it.

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/14/podcasts/hardfork-data-ce...

> and have had a number of breaches in the past

Do you have a source for this claim of multiple past breaches? The only one I know of is the Okta breach.

For me they're still firmly in the 'one of the best options out there' category because cross-platform usability is incredibly good imho. I will admit it's been quite a while since I migrated from KeyPass so maybe these other options have improved too.

The best I can tell you (from working with LLM's) is that... it's complicated.

There are moments where spending 10 min on a good prompt saves me 2hrs of typing and it finishes that in the time it takes me to go make myself a cup of coffee (~10 min) Those are the good moments.

Then there are moments where it's more like 30 min savings for 10 min of prompting. Those are still pretty good.

Then there are plenty of moments where spending 10 mins on a prompt saves me about 15mins of work. But I have to wait 5 mins for the result, so it ends up being a wash except it has a downside that I didn't really write it myself so the actual details of the solution aren't fully internalized.

There's also plenty of moments where the result at first glance looks like a good / great result but once I start reviewing and fixing things it still ends up being a wash.

I find it actually quite difficult to determine the result quality because at first glance it always looks pretty decent, and then sometimes once you start reviewing it's indeed the case and other times I'm like "well it needs some tweaking" and subsequently spend an hour tweaking.

Now I think the problem is that the response is akin to gambling / conditioning in a sense. Every prompt has a smallish chance to trigger a great result, and since the average result is still about 25% faster (my gut feeling based on what I've 'written' the last few months working with Claude Code) it's just very tempting to pull that slot machine lever even in tasks that I know I will most likely type faster than I can prompt.

I did find a place where (to me, at least) it almost certainly adds value: I find it difficult to think about code during meetings (I really need my attention in the meetings I do) but I can send a few quick prompts for small stuff during meetings and don't really have to context switch. This alone is a decent productivity booster. Refactorings that would've been a 'maybe, one day' can now just be triggered. Best case I spend 10 minutes reviewing and accept it. Worst case I just throw it away.

Works fine. Reverting the code too is an option you can choose.

The 'best' trick I learned from someone over here when working with Claude Code is to very regularly go back a few steps in your context (esc esc -> pick something a few steps up) and say something like "yeah, I already did this myself, now continue and do Y"

It results helps keep the context clean while still keeping the initial context I provided (usually with documentation and initial plan setup) at the core of the context.

Now that you say this, I did notice webpages blow context but didn't think too much of it just yet, maybe there's some improvement to be found here using a subagent? I'm not a big fan of subagents (didn't really get proper results out of them in my initial experiments anyway) but maybe adding a 'web researcher' sub agent that summarizes to a concise markdown file could help here.

While technically correct, assuming a balanced budget means less tax revenue will have to be offset either by reducing government expenses or raising taxes for everyone, so in practice all taxpayers 'pay for' a tax credit.

Because it's confusing most likely. As others have pointed out:

> Anthony _Albanese_ is the name of the current PM of Australia

Which is probably why this Australian publication calls it the 'Albanese Government'. Not to be confused with the government of Albania.

Thanks. When testing today I noticed it 'forgot' to run the linter, build, test etc. commands. I thought this might've been a Sonnet 4.5 v.s. Opus 4 issue but it looks like this instruction was dropped for some reason.

I should probably include that in my Claude.md instead I guess?

I've been working with Opus 4 on ultrathink quite a bit recently and did some quick tests with Sonnet 4.5, I'm fairly impressed, especially with its speed but I did feel it was a lot less strict with my rules, existing patterns, etc. compared to Opus 4.

Maybe it's better with a better CLAUDE.md structure? I don't use those a lot, just telling Opus to think got 'good enough' results I guess. Not sure.

I hope there's an Opus 4.5 coming out soon too. In the meantime I'll see if I can get to do better with some extra prompting or I'll go back to Opus of if I don't need the speedier responses.

This is genius, thank you.

I know it sounds like a lot but in my experience the difference is mostly a fixed offset plus a tiny percentage due to tire pressure/size.

A fixed 2mph difference at 20mph is 10% so imho they're at least _technically correct_.

Maybe not technically correct but it's still the gist of this line, no?

> Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to Company, and to recipients of software distributed by Company related hereto, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute, Your Contributions and such derivative works (the “Contributor License Grant”).

They are allowed to use your contribution in a derivative work under another license and/or sublicense your contribution.

It's technically not copyright reassignment though.

It's probably not that simple because at a cursory glance I see quite a few points in history where my country's main stock index was about 50% of its current valuation: January 1998, February 2006, January 2015, July 2016, April 2020.

Sure compared to the last time (2020) or before that (2016) it's a big difference, but compared to the first time we're pretty close to a 100% increase in median salary. Compared to the second time it's still close it 60%.

Somewhat, but imho the Microsoft MFA is also full of similar flaws.

As an example: I've disabled the email and sms MFA methods because I have two hardware keys registered.

However, as soon as my account is added to an azure admin group (e.g. through PIM) an admin policy in azure forces those to 'enabled'.

It took me a long time debugging why the hell these methods got re-enabled every so often, it boils down to "because the azure admin controls for 'require MFA for admins' don't know about TOTP/U2F yet"

Imho it's maddening how bad it is.

Got a work machine upgraded to Win11 recently... I held out as long as possible but in the end had to upgrade because support will be dropped.

My biggest daily frustration is that Microsoft dropped support for putting the taskbar anywhere other than the bottom...

I've been using (mostly) the OpenAI image generator for quite some time generating coloring pages, it's pretty decent at it and can generate just about anything my kids want as long as you word it a bit neutral to avoid it generating (something it recognizes as) copyrighted content.

Great idea to turn your own photos into a coloring book generator!

Edit: I wonder how you prevent it from generating copyrighted content when people upload e.g. 'photos' of Disney content? Or has that not been a problem yet?

You probably thought of this already but we mostly do load shifting. If you have moderate PV output (like with balcony solar) that can probably use up most of your production.

Consider running the dishwasher (if you have one) or washing machine / dryer (if you don't dry that in the sun directly) during the day.

Granted, we work from home _a lot_ and also have an EV so it's a lot easier to do load shifting for us, but just shifting the dishwasher and washing machine to 'sunlight hours' already made a pretty decent difference.

You don't think a (probably significant) portion of that money is allocated to sites that were 'in progress' on July 2024?

From what I can tell from the newsletter I get from a big European charging infrastructure provider the lead time of a new charging location tends to be 1 - 2 years depending on the specific location.

While I do agree these numbers are disingenuous, looking at politics I definitely see the next administration counting the chargers that will come up past January 2025 to their win list. Oh well, I guess that's politics.

I'll be honest and tell you I didn't look into the specifics of this project.

My guess would be that the money is also allocated for an X amount of sites / charging ports still in progress. Or do they only allocate the money after the site is fully operational?

If that's the case, I think saying '2B spent for 61 ports' is disingenuous at best.

My first name starts with the 'letter' (digraph, actually [0]) IJ.

I have a standard email I send to companies not honoring the only correct Dutch spelling of my name and/or initials.

The GDPR makes it mandatory for companies to correctly process your personal details so while it can take a while sometimes it's gotten a lot better over the years.

In your case (assuming you live in the EU) there's plenty of precedent to send a standard email like that too. Even banks have been forced kicking and screaming to fix it [1].

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IJ_(digraph) [1]: https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/10/ebcdic-is-incompatible-with...

As someone who - by default - has Bluetooth disabled, I can safely say: Same with Bluetooth.

I'm slightly annoyed I have to check settings every update, but it's not like it's something new, it has been that way for years.

E: typo