I find sort of escape in listening to non-technical podcast giving more of a insight into how broad, curios and overall marvelous and different the world is.

Search Engine https://www.searchengine.show

99% invisible https://99percentinvisible.org

From the tweet:

> New in Claude Code: Remote Control. > Kick off a task in your terminal and pick it up from your phone while you take a walk or join a meeting. > Claude keeps running on your machine, and you can control the session from the Claude app or http://claude.ai/code

So now we can actually make a computer into a proactive agent without Claws. Or does it become a Claw now? xD

And the amazing team at https://savelife.in.ua/en/

> You can see this in practice when you use Claude Code, which is pay-per-token. Our heaviest users are using $50/month of tokens. That’s a lot of tokens.

How is your usage so low! Every time i do anything with claude code i spend couple of bucks, for a day of coding it's about $20. Is there a way to save on tokens on a mid-sized Python project or people are just using it less?

It's because by default it'll try to solve most problems agentically / by "thinking", even if your prompt is fairly prescriptive.

I use aider.chat with Claude 3.5 haiku / 3.7 sonnet, cram the context window, and my typical day is under $5.

One thing that can help for lengthy conversations is caching your prompts (which aider supports, but I'm sure Claude Code does, too?)

Obviously, Anthropic has an incentive to get people to use more tokens (i.e. by encouraging you to use tokens on "thinking"). It's one reason to prefer a vendor-neutral solution like aider.

This is my experience too, I can burn $20 on a big refactoring in a few hours no problem

A lot of the time (when it works) I think its easily worth the money, but I would quickly break their $100 a month budget

How though? Are you putting a massive code base into context each time?

Yeah, I think you need to do task in more discrete chunks, so you aren't' sending so many tokens each request by the end.

With Aider, you typically select only that part of the codebase that you want to work on. You can do this manually, or let the agent find files itself. It tends to break down if you need more than 20 files or so in the context.

That seems really high to me. Maybe you write a lot more code than anyone else around. How big is the codebase? I have a feeling that (+ the stack) has a big impact.

The introduction video looks impressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwUwgpqgcMA

There also wasn’t a 9/11 before the 9/11.

There were dozens of terror attacks against air travel in the 80s and 90s. The global post-9/11 "security theater" did make flying in the developing world much safer.

There's been dozens of hijackings since 9/11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#20...

To be fair there's been a lot less hijackings in the 2000s and 2010s compared with previous decades - although as the decline started in the 90's - its not likely to be solely due to increased security.

It has to do with several things, among them you have:

- the end of the cold war, with the clear hegemony of the US which halted state-sponsored terrorism from unaligned-but-socialist-minded countries (especially Libya)

- targeted assassination of terrorist leaders and infrastructures (no more training summer camps) no matter the country they are in (mostly through drones nowadays), leading to a progressive reduction in sophistication in terror attacks committed, and the rise of lone wolfs instead of structured terrorist commandos.

It's completely due to prior to 9/11 you left the hijackers alone and they would land the plane, get arrested or die in a shootout with the police.

Now if you attempt to hijack a plane 100-300 passengers will beat your ASS and stop you before you get anywhere near control of the aircraft.

There will never be another hijacking attack where the pilot loses control of the plane from a threat of a would be hijacker.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, hijackings occurred, on average, once every five days globally.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/a-brief-history-of-ai...

That lists twenty, and the minimum to be "dozens" would be 24.

Grammatically, 1.5 donut is wrong and 1.5 donuts is correct. So, in this case "1.66~ dozens" (because 20 / 12 = 1.66~) is pedantically correct.

(...But logically and intuitively everything I just said is extremely stupid because by that logic 12.01 counts as "dozens" and that's ridiculous, so your complaint is absolutely correct and I agree with you 100%)

Grammatically, 0.2 donut is wrong also. So by that logic, 0.01 also counts as dozens.

I'd argue that "dozens" obviously means there are a multiple of 12.

I always attributed that to:

  - before 9/11, the advice was: sit down in your seat and wait for the ransom demands

  - after 9/11: fight for your life now or die in a blaze of fire

Hijackers must feel this too. No quarter will be given.

Wasn't that a contributing factor to UA93 being "unsuccessful"? The passengers had gotten word of the other three flights, and stopped being quite as compliant (though "compliant" is obviously not the full story for the other three flights).

Yes! Without this incident, I wouldn't be as optimistic about people fighting back. Turns out, people can be pretty rational after all.

Really? So that’s attributable to us not carrying bottles of water and to us taking our shoes off?

Yes, everyone knows that terrorists can't take off their shoes.

The TSA checks are ineffective, they fail detection 95% of the time [1]. That's a pretty good indication that it's security theater.

Personally, I'd expect the decrease to be mostly attributable to increased cockpit access security like locked reinforced doors.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-...

Pocket Casts for iOS https://pocketcasts.com/ https://apps.apple.com/app/id414834813

and android - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=au.com.shiftyj...

Meme? Moore’s meme.