I recently asked Claude (Opus 5) to give me guidance on how to instruct it to be less verbose in a way that it will _actually follow_. Its response was something to the effect of (and I'm heavily paraphrasing here) "'Succinct' and 'short' aren't objective measurements. Try providing a strict word budget instead."
Given that guidance, I tried specifying "Unless I ask you to elaborate, respond with no more than one paragraph, using sentences of 20 words or fewer." It works...ish. I still see it violate this rule regularly, but it's less bad IME.
FWIW, I think this is good guidance since it does match Anthropic's documentation. They say that every rule should have a non-subjective way to determine pass/fail.
(I said "good guidance" but it might be more correct to say that it's the best guidance we have, it's what Anthropic says about their own model.)
For me, the interest in engine-making is to give myself a toolkit that is suited for the kinds of games I want to make, rather than an engine that is trying to be everything to everyone. Also to avoid the Unreal Engine monoculture.
Unreal Engine allows the widespread deployment of applications catering to a tightly bound framework - a system, upon which standard operations can be completed. It functions standardly, independently of any OS upon which it is hosted. There is no distinction between an OS hosted on another OS, nor is there a requirement that for an OS to be considered an operating system, no other operating system can be involved.
Windows is a game engine because you can write standard games for it, standardly, and its base SDK’s support game development, natively - it also of course supports other game engines, which eventually become capable of hosting applications (and are thus OS’s), because: Windows is an OS and it is a game engine…
>Unreal Engine allows the widespread deployment of applications catering to a tightly bound framework - a system, upon which standard operations can be completed.
This isn't the definition of an OS, it's the definition of literally all software - a "system" upon which "operations" are performed.
But the purpose of Unreal Engine isn't to manage a computer's hardware and software resources, user access, etc. It isn't an operating system. It doesn't operate the system. An operating system hosted by an OS still serves the purpose of an operating system. The actual purpose of the software matters.
>Windows is a game engine because you can write standard games for it, standardly, and its base SDK’s support game development, natively - it also of course supports other game engines, which eventually become capable of hosting applications (and are thus OS’s), because: Windows is an OS and it is a game engine…
Windows is not a game engine because its purpose is not creating games. The fact that it can run applications, some of which may happen to be game engines, does not make it a game engine. The fact that it has graphics and sound APIs that game engines can access doesn't make it a game engine.
Sorry, I don't find this profound or interesting. Windows has not become a game engine, and Unreal has not become an operating system. Your argument basically boils down to semantics and only makes sense if you ignore the actual context and purpose of what we're talking about and why the distinctions matter.
>a "system" upon which "operations" are performed.
Indeed, that is the point entirely. The distinction is arbitrary.
> But the purpose of Unreal Engine isn't to manage a computer's hardware and software resources, user access, etc.
Oh no, that is absolutely the purpose of Unreal Engine - to manager the computers available hardware, software resources, user permissions in such a way that - across a very wide variety of different hardware configurations - the hosted applications run standardly and consistently.
That it fulfills this purpose as a system of operating hardware resources in order to provide standard game applications their own hosting surface, across a wider variety of host OS’s, demonstrates that in fact, an OS does not become an OS just because it is the first thing to boot the hardware.
By that reasoning, the BIOS is an operating system and Windows is just an application which runs on it, with a very large percentage of users doing so only to play games …
> Windows is not a game engine because its purpose is not creating games.
I think there is a billion dollar department at Microsoft with is at odds with your view entirely. Microsoft has spent a lot of resources making Windows into a game engine which can fulfill the purpose.
> Sorry, I don't find this profound or interesting
Give it time. You will see the fallacy in your arbitrary definitions.
> Semantics
Actually, I’m arguing from a great deal of experience as a systems analyst.
Anecdotally, I have also felt many of these same complaints.
In my case, I have a semi-autonomous loop where Claude writes some code, and uses `codex exec` to do an adversarial review. I had what should have been a trivial feature go for 13 rounds of review/fix before I stopped it, where each round was just flip-flopping the same logic back and forth to try to make the tests pass. Codex kept (correctly) re-identifying the issues Claude was flip-flopping on. Codex even suggested fixes that would have worked; Claude ignored them repeatedly. I never saw anything remotely this bad on Opus 4.8.
Additionally, I have a CLAUDE.md instruction to not silently defer anything, and ask me anytime it wants to do so. Opus 4.8 paid attention to this rule the overwhelming majority of the time. Opus 5 seemingly cannot be bothered.
I have tried updating my CLAUDE.md according to Anthropic’s recommendations for Opus 5, but it doesn’t seem to have made any difference.
Couldn't disagree more. I've only recently started digging into graphics programming and I've found it incredibly rewarding. It's the _one_ area of expertise that I don't yet have that has been preventing me from solo-developing a 3D game engine.
It takes five minutes of trawling through the videos on the GDC Vault to see all of the clever and interesting ways modern graphics engineers are eking every bit of performance out of modern hardware. Is it as clever or innovative as Carmack's fast inverse square root? I don't know. I'm not sure how to compare those things. But there is still plenty of room for that flavor of work for those that are interested.
Sony in particular is doubling down on platform exclusives again. I was waiting for Ghost of Yōtei to come out on PC, but Sony cancelled the port. We're well and truly fucked without physical media for exclusives like this.
They didn't say they were buying them. It is just undeniably a bad thing that you can't buy it without DRM. You can say "just don't buy it", but that doesn't make the existence of the DRM any better.
It shouldn't be the case that this is relied upon. There needs to be a cultural shift in the industry back to physical - or at least, preservable - media.
The PS5 has been pretty secure (though, not perfect). They learned their lesson from the PS4 and took some pages out of the Microsoft playbook - brought back the hypervisor and implemented e-fuses.
Byepervisor did crack the hypervisor, but it requires an old version of the firmware and the console has to be kept offline to avoid being upgraded. There's no mechanism to downgrade the firmware like there was with the PS4, which limits the blast radius of potential jailbreaks.
Of course, even offline consoles can be updated, since games can ship with firmware updates required need to play the game.
All true, but you don’t need to crack the hypervisor to play cracked games, and if you manage to jailbreak your console there are game backports for older firmware versions.
Also, there are unreleased kernel exploits (i.e. jailbreaks) even for the most recent firmware versions, which will inevitably come out in the future.
The scene is not as mature as PS4, but a lot of progress was made this year.
I have heard this from a bunch of folks, but that was not my experience. For the couple days I was able to use it, I didn't hit a single gate, and I was using it pretty extensively (but not for anything security-related).
If you’re not interested in hand-maintaining the code of the website(s), and you just want a nice GUI for publishing pages/posts/etc., then I’d say use some hosted platform like Squarespace.
For actually learning how to build websites, start with something more low-level and barebones like a static site generator (Jekyll, Hugo, Gatsby, etc.), or even plain GitHub Pages without a static site generator for the most “manual” experience.
In neither of those cases would I consider WordPress.
What if i say my start was from wordpress so what shoyld I use then lets say I know basics of html and other built some php functions but now I wanna code without using AI
In that case, I would consider a lightweight static site generator.
It sounds like you're fairly new to programming, so I would suggest a static site generator that is easy to install and use.
Zola[1] is less well-known, but it's easy to install and fast. I tend to use Hugo[2] the most these days, which is fast and has solid documentation, but its template syntax is really annoying compared to Zola.
I use Lightroom Classic with the excellent Negative Lab Pro plug-in for converting film negatives, but I can’t stand Lightroom itself. I could easily see using this for post-conversion color grading.
Also stuck on Lightroom for this purpose. Have been looking for any analog/film perspectives on this update from Photrio and Reddit but nothing yet. Curious if this could potentially replace Negative Lab Pro (despite generally being quite good) in my workflow and take me out of Lightroom.
If US manufacturers (or manufacturers in allied countries) do this, legal avenues exist to hold those manufacturers accountable. Not so with China.
(That is not to say that the FCC change will move the needle on the underlying issue of router security; as some of the ancestor comments have said, lax security practices are common industry-wide, irrespective of country of development/manufacture.)
The Snowden leak showed that Cisco routers had been altered to enable surveillance [1]. Whether or not the manufacturer is complicit, or how the alteration is performed is ultimately irrelevant to the end user. Ultimately, the only people that got in legal trouble for this were Snowden and people who provided service to him.
It is absolutely relevant. It is completely within the realm of feasibility that a foreign nation state would pressure a manufacturer in their jurisdiction to include a backdoor, or simply insert it themselves. Routers are in every home and office in the country, and can be leveraged for immense attacks. It’s a hugely attractive target, and it’s a reasonable security policy to try to limit our exposure to this threat. And it would absolutely make sense for adversaries to avoid buying U.S. made routers for exactly the same reason. Unfortunately this administration is generating more adversaries by the day.
I think you're responding to the wrong comment, or missing the nuance above.
Having state actors redirecting products after shipping, without telling the company or the client it's happening, and installing backdoors, has nothing at all to do with backdoors from manufacturers.
>a foreign nation state would pressure a manufacturer in their jurisdiction to include a backdoor
That absolutely is about jurisdiction and is a much bigger, more scalable attack than intercepting and installing implants. More to the point, it can be done at _any time_ not just the initial ship.
My point is that the US did alter homemade products for export, and that the only people litigated against were the whistleblower and/or companies providing service to him.
> If US manufacturers (or manufacturers in allied countries) do this, legal avenues exist to hold those manufacturers accountable.
With that context added, my point is that the US judicial system would never litigate against e.g. Cisco if they were involved. The issue is not the relation between the state and Cisco, it's the relation between the US justice system and the US national security apparatus that prevents any such litigation to happen.
> legal avenues exist to hold those manufacturers accountable
Maybe in theory. I think the practical chance of enforcing anything meaningful through those legal avenues against a US manufacturer is not meaningfully higher than the chance of doing so against a Chinese manufacturer, so it doesn't make sense to treat them differently on these grounds.
Given that guidance, I tried specifying "Unless I ask you to elaborate, respond with no more than one paragraph, using sentences of 20 words or fewer." It works...ish. I still see it violate this rule regularly, but it's less bad IME.