Shall I implement it? No

Post by _doctor_love » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 6:39 PM UTC

VortexLain wrote: post #233

torben-friis wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've resorted to append things like "THIS IS JUST A QUESTION. DO NOT EDIT CODE. DO NOT RUN COMMANDS". Which is ridiculous. Funny to read that, because for me it's not even new behavior. I have developed a tendency to add something like "(genuinely asking, do not take as a criticism)". I'm from a more confrontational culture, so I just assumed this was just corporate American tone framing criticism softly, and me com…

Appending "Good." before clarifying questions actually helps with that suprisingly well.

Post by gverrilla » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 7:03 PM UTC

croes wrote: post #418

gverrilla wrote: post #387

Respect Claude Code and the output will be better. It's not your slave. Treat it as your teammate. Added benefit is that you will know it's limits, common mistakes etc, strenghts, etc, and steer it better next session. Being too vague is a problem, and most of the times being too specific doesn't help either.

No is a pretty clear statement

Post by maleldil » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 7:52 PM UTC

jurgenburgen wrote: post #519

sroussey wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t use the “auto” model and you will be fine. You just described their “auto” behavior, which I’m guessing uses grok. Using it with specific models is great, though you can tell that Anthropic is subsidizing Claude Code as you watch your API costs more directly. Some day the subsidy will end. Enjoy it now! And cursor debugging is 10x better, oh my god. I have switched to 70% Claude Code, 10% Copilot code reviews (…

> get four to implement the same thing at the same time, then review their choices Why would you do that to yourself? Reviewing 4 different solutions instead of 1 is 4 times the amount of work.

Post by johnnyanmac » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:13 PM UTC

al_borland wrote: post #177

bluefirebrand wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really just how the tech industry works. We have abused the concept of consent into an absolute mess My personal favorite way they do this lately is notification banners for like... Registering for news letters "Would you like to sign up for our newsletter? Yes | Maybe Later" Maybe later being the only negative answer shows a pretty strong lack of understanding about consent!

Worse yet, instead of a checkbox to opt in/out of a newsletter or marketing email when signing up or checking out, it simply opts the user in. Simply doing business with a company is consent to spam, with the excuse that the user can unsubscribe if they don’t want it. Tactics like these should be illegal, but instead they have become industry standards.

Post by fittingopposite » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 9:22 PM UTC

ddoolin wrote: post #169

torben-friis wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've resorted to append things like "THIS IS JUST A QUESTION. DO NOT EDIT CODE. DO NOT RUN COMMANDS". Which is ridiculous. Funny to read that, because for me it's not even new behavior. I have developed a tendency to add something like "(genuinely asking, do not take as a criticism)". I'm from a more confrontational culture, so I just assumed this was just corporate American tone framing criticism softly, and me com…

Same here. I quickly learned that if you merely ask questions about it's understanding or plans, it starts looking for alternatives because my questioning is interpreted as rejection or criticism, rather than just taking the question at face value. So I often (not always) have to caveat questions like that too. It's really been like that since before Claude Code or Codex even rolled around. It's just strange because…