> What i dont understand is why does everything have to be so brief
Computers used to have very little memory and processing power, and screens had very low pixel density so line width was not that big. Then you have to deal with the baggage 50 years later.
Modern Lisps have the luxury so they use head/tail or first/rest.
> Mutability is a property of variable, not of a value. [...] This has nothing to do with whether it can be reassigned (i.e. mutability).
I feel like you're using "mutable" too narrowly, as it's used colloquially in some programming languages. E.g. in JS, MDN itself talks about "reassignment"[0] and not "mutability" even though people often use "mutability" as a word to refer to the distinction between `const` and `let`. The only mention of mutability there is:
> Others may prefer `let` for non-primitives that are mutated
I.e. explicitly using `let` for mutated arrays, even if not reassigned, to make the signal mutability (which JS cannot express).
Note that you used "reassignment" which is the specific word for "mutating a binding", but the article is not referring to bindings at all.
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.
Computers used to have very little memory and processing power, and screens had very low pixel density so line width was not that big. Then you have to deal with the baggage 50 years later.
Modern Lisps have the luxury so they use head/tail or first/rest.
reply