It does, and, when combined with Claude's stingy cache TTL of 5 minutes (unless you up it to 1h at a sizeable increase in token cost) for API billing, means that some sessions cost like 10x what they should because of cold caches.
Anecdotally I only stuggle with this with Claude Code. Codex has been great at auto managing its context and, when combined with how I handle memory outside of the session, I haven't thought about context window size in ages when using Codex.
I use a lightweight ticket system. Planning creates very detailed tickets with acceptance criteria. Implementation finishes with updating any info relevant to future work on the tickets as comments. The planner searches for previous related work both to avoid past pitfalls but also to get any potentially relevant info into its context. Works well with subagents ramping up quickly.
Just for agents. I track bigger picture work items in a normal ticket tracker (Linear, etc.) and the lightweight one (I use kata) is just for coordinating work and memory between agents.
I agree, and most of my prof friends in math have switched from graded homework to weekly small quizzes. Graded homework was a way to use the stick as motivation because we've given up on the carrot (the learning of the material itself as an internal reward for completing homework).
Some of them keep the homework grade to like ~5% and mostly grade on completion because, when the student's homework proofs use advanced concepts and proof techniques not covered yet but their quizzes get sub-50 point F grades with barely coherent thoughts, it's a clear sign that they are not actually spending time using the resources the class has given them to work on the material.
It seems like all of them have given up on punishing students for it, largely because they're pretenure and the teaching part of tenure review here is primarily student evals drive (HINT: this is a MAJOR part of many broader problems). But to me it's kinda nuts that in one year or so, we have decided that it's actually ok to admit students into very competitive elite institutions, catch them passing off work that isn't theirs as theirs, and not treating that the exact same as we would have a few years ago if we caught them all sharing solutions.
"A pi session and the change it made, scoped to an isolated git-worktree workspace."
Yep. The "A $thing, $elaboration." has joined "$title. $thing, $past_verb." in my "this team didn't care enough to do a basic pass over the main page introducing their product" tells.
Earlier this year we had prospective customers do comparisons against our competitors but also against prompting their own. All of them, without exception, found that to be a bad idea.
If it were just about the ability to edit images, Gimp would have obsoleted Photoshop decades back. Photoshop excels because of its capabilities but even more because of its ease of use and the stickiness of the skillset its users have spent developing.
It's crazy how bad Dot has been with stuff like this. You'd think it would be able to (and need to be able to) edit a lot of environment settings, tunnels, plugins, etc., but I keep running into issues. For example, I wanted to make a Codex plugin to give it the ability to steer Codex agents running within my own infrastructure, tunneling in via Tailscale. Ended up just giving up and going with a different approach. Because, for example, every time I'd add a new tool to the plugin, I'd have to manually restart Dot (something that wasn't even obvious that it was possible until you fumble around menu dropdowns) and wait because it can't just refresh tools.
Everything I'm describing is more power user stuff than its most basic use cases ("Do this thing for me with your browser") but all the roadblocks I've run into involve one part of OpenAI's product not being able to talk to the other. I'd imagine Claude Duet is the same.
Muse is the most obviously doomed claw-style bot because you already need to segment those things from ANY personal info, and Meta rolls into the room as the journal that will tell everyone what you write in it and says "trust me"
Part of a huge problem with FAANG companies. You can't be Meta and just ratfuck your users for decades and then ask them to trust you, just like you can't be Amazon and turn your storefront into Temu-lite and expect people to want to order products sight unseen with your Echo shit.
Actually, they can. And given their distribution channels they can even pull it off. You and me will obviously never use something like Muse from Meta, but they are the best positioned to sell that product to teenagers, young adults who don’t care about privacy and want to feel they are using the trendy stuff. Just look at their mascot, the thing is made to be targeted at younger people. And they will definitely release it as a tamagochi people will cherish as if it was a pet.
Terrible company, doing terrible things for society. But I wouldn’t bet against their ability to sell something to their audience
Interesting because afaik young people have no interest in Facebook at all. My expectation was that old people, Meta's primary victims, would be the main users. They love mascots like that (see: Minions). They're also likely to be more willing to pay a small subscription fee, which Meta has mentioned they plan on adding.
reply