szmarczak

> Defaults matter. A large share of people never change them (status quo bias, psychological inertia). Having control over them (and usage quotas) means Anthropic can control and fine-tune what this fixed subscription costs them.

Allowing third party wrappers doesn't mean Claude Code would cease to exist. The opposite actually, Claude Code would be the default.

People dissatisfied with Code would simply use other wrappers. I call it a win-win. Don't see how Anthropic would be on a lose here, they would still retain the ability to control the defaults.

> they control the system prompt

They control the default system prompt. You can change it if you want to.

> They can pick the default reasoning effort

Don't see how it's an obstacle in allowing third party wrappers.

> They can decide what to keep and what to throw out

That's actually a good point. However I still don't think it's an obstacle. If third party wrappers were bad, people simply wouldn't be using them.

Nothing you wrote makes sense. The limits are so Anthropic isn't on a loss. If they can customize Claude using Code, I see no reason why they couldn't do so with other wrappers. Other wrappers can also make use of cache.

If you worry about "degraded" experience, then let people choose. People won't be using other wrappers if they turn out to be bad. People ain't stupid.

Why ban third party wrappers? All of this could've been sidestepped had you not banned them.

Wow, the difference between AI and non-AI images collapses. I hate the future where I won't be able to tell the difference.

> It can’t detect the interception

What's stopping the process from reading its own memory and seeing that the syscall was patched?

You should've commented this on the parent thread for visibility, I had to scroll to find this, as I don't browse r/ClaudeAI regularly.

SVGs on Firefox are broken (like 0.1% of the size it needs to be).

I'm on the Free tier using Claude exclusively for consultation (send third party codebase + ask why/where is something done). I also used to struggle to hit limits. Recently I was able hit the limit after a single prompt.

As per the quotes, it could've been that he had read them, liked them and kept repeating them. However given other matching circumstances such as grammar this becomes unlikely. Also, this is just a single journalist; to know precisely this should be outsourced to a company doing forensics.

> misidentification

We don't know if that's misidentification either. The author provides good evidence that the writing style matches, which doesn't provide a strong proof, however it's a good clue of who might it be.

> Unfortunately, it's been an absolutely brutal market for new graduates.

Furthermore, more and more companies are looking for "professional" devs using AI tools such as Claude Code. By "professional" I mean proficient in using those AI tools, not actual knowledge. And they don't even specify this in the job offer and you learn this during the interview.

He's just incompetent:

1. He blames the maintainer that his distro doesn't ship latest neovim.

2. He didn't pull neovim from the Extra-Testing Arch branch.

3. He didn't pull neovim from AUR.

4. He doesn't have the knowledge to build from source.

5. He didn't pull the tarball from git.

6. He didn't pull the AppImage from git.

There's so many solutions to choose from and he chose none; pure ragebait.

Yes, but you aren't going to give your teacher a remarkable to take home. Hence a sheet of paper comes in handy :)

> The overall consensus among parents is that books are way better than screens for kids

Any scientific backing that screens are at fault? I don't think so. E-ink tablets do exist. When I'm having children, I'm buying them a remarkable with all the books scanned. Sure, they still need physical sheets of paper and a pen, but they don't have to carry 2-3 kgs of literature.

The major reason against digital literature is that it's free, book authors wouldn't get paid and books wouldn't get sold (Wikipedia / OpenStax / pirated books). Money. It's always been about money.

> I don’t use the mouse when editing code, so this particular mistake does not happen to me.

Fair point.

> Less visual noise.

It doesn't solve this problem of your eyes guessing the correct indentation, especially when using two spaces (I hate two spaces even with braces). You could set up your IDE so it highlights the block and prints a hint at the end what block is ending, however you lose this once you open a plain text editor.

The point of using braces for this is that you can count them.

Also, if you were to print the code without braces on a paper, it would be a hard time reading, since the paper is much smaller than a 27" monitor.

> And the ability to use braces for other syntax.

There's other ways. For example, {} in Swift can be also used for ResultBuilder. And if you need the braces without knowing the type upfront, you can prefix it e.g. ${}.

> I never find myself just randomly inserting characters.

Hasn't it ever occured to you trying to insert a space at your mouse but your cursor wasn't there? People sometimes forget to click (or think the cursor is already there), myself included. Characters are easier to spot because they are not invisible and random letters cause compile errors.

If it has never occurred to you, then good for you. However I do not see what the benefit of not using closing brackets would be.

> and not realizing the braces don't match.

Make your IDE highlight the current section or display a hint showing starting bracket. For example, C++ devs do #endif // #if ...

Too many brackets? Refactor - problem solved.

> whitespace/indent languages make it clear there's a lot of redundancy there too.

The only purpose for whitespace indentation is to make the code easier on the eyes. A space shouldn't have an impact in terms of execution, that would be too hazardous. It's too easy to randomly insert a space rather than a character.

> human only looking at the indentation and not realizing the braces don't match.

If it ever gets to that point, a refactor is obligatory.

Don't give the human tools to make easy mistakes. Any grammar can be abused, so blame the human for not writing clean code.

It's not. Your eyes can deceive you by guessing the correct indentation. Indentation should never be used for grammar separation. Explicit characters such as } ] ) are clearer and unambiguous.

Indeed, you're right. However, it still needs to encode and decode strings. WASM just needs native interop.

> Attempted Fix: Skip the JSON Round-Trip > We integrated serde-wasm-bindgen

So you're reinventing JSON but binary? V8 JSON nowadays is highly optimized [1] and can process gigabytes per second [2], I doubt it is a bottleneck here.

[1] https://v8.dev/blog/json-stringify [2] https://github.com/simdjson/simdjson

> I'm really struggling to understand how Anthropic is benefited by not allowing this.

Closed ecosystem like Apple. They want you to use their tools, not someone else's.

HN comments isn't a place to advertise your product.

> Not allowing AI assistance on PRs will likely decimate the project in the future, as it will not allow fast iteration speeds compared to other alternatives.

It's not an AI issue. Node.js itself is lots of legacy code and many projects depend on that code. When Deno and Bun were in early development, AI wasn't involved.

Yes, you can speed up the development a bit but it will never reach the quality of newer runtimes.

It's like comparing C to C++. Those languages are from different eras (relatively to each other).

> The guidelines are only worth having

I'm not saying they aren't.

[1] This question is trash as well. I admit I got baited. My bad.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47406857

Immoral behavior needs to be called out. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47274075

> post-game analysis can detect it.

Not with 100% accuracy. This means some legitimate players would be qualified as potentially cheating.

You don't have to play with wallhacks constantly on, you can toggle. And it doesn't detect cases where you're camping with an AWP and have 150ms response time instead of 200ms. Sometimes people are just having a good day.

> cheating game match maker

This is already a thing. In CS2, you have a Trust Factor. The lower your trust factor is, the bigger the chance you will be queued with/against cheaters.

In CS2, the game renders your enemies even though you can't see them (within some close range). The draw calls are theoretically interceptable (either on the software/firmware or other hardware level). Detecting this is essentially impossible because the game trusts that the GPU will render correctly.