I am avoiding the cost of API access by using the chat/ui instead, in my case Google Gemini 2.5 Pro with the high token window. Repomix a whole repo. Paste it in with a standard prompt saying "return full source" (it tends to not follow this instruction after a few back and forths) and then apply the result back on top of the repo (vibe coded https://github.com/radekstepan/apply-llm-changes to help me with that).
Else yeah, $5 spent on Cline with Claude 3.7 and instead of fixing my tests, I end up with if/else statements in the source code to make the tests pass.
I decided to experiment with Claude Code this month. The other day it decided the best way to fix the spec was to add a conditional to the test that causes it to return true before getting to the thing that was actually supposed to be tested.
I’m finding it useful for really tedious stuff like doing complex, multi step terminal operations. For the coding… it’s not been great.
I’ve had this in different ways many times. Like instead of resolving the underlying issue for an exception, it just suggests catching the exception and keep going
It also depends a lot on the mix of model and type of code and libraries involved. Even in different days the models seem to be more or less capable (I’m assuming they get throttled internally - this is very noticeable sometimes in how they try to save on output tokens and summarize the code responses as much as possible, at least in the chat/non-api interfaces)
Cool tool. What format does it expect from the model?
I’ve been looking for something that can take “bare diffs” (unified diffs without line numbers), from the clipboard and then apply them directly on a buffer (an open file in vscode)
None of the paste diff extension for vscode work, as they expect a full unified diff/patch
I also tried a google-developed patch tool, but also wasn’t very good at taking in the bare diffs, and def couldn’t do clipboard
Markdown format with a comment saying what the file path is. So:
This is src/components/Foo.tsx
```tsx
// code goes here
```
OR
```tsx
// src/components/Foo.tsx
// code goes here
```
These seem to work the best.
I tried diff syntax, but Gemini 2.5 just produced way too many bugs.
I also tried using regex and creating an AST of the markdown doc and going from there, but ultimately settled on calling gpt-4.1-mini-2025-04-14 with the beginning of the code block (```) and 3 lines before and 3 lines after the beginning of the code block.
It's fast/cheap enough to work.
Coal is used in (some) peaking power plants that only turn on during a surge of demand for electricity. Some also use natural gas. It's easier to spin them up/down and can deal with the strain of being used intermittently.
I work for a major American utility company and I'm not aware of coal being used to deliver peak power ("peaker plant" in the utility parlance). Coal power plants take hours to get up to operating temperature and when allowed to flame out you've significantly decreased the lifespan of the furnace. What they do instead is reduce the injection rate to maintain minimal operating temperature and run the output to ground. From that standpoint coal is very similar to nuclear: you don't simply stop a reactor. You send its output to ground. That's why coal and nuclear units are used for base load, not peak load. Natural gas units are just a turbine engine, you can spin that thing up and down as needed all day long to handle peaks. Wind and solar are auxiliary power sources - all American ISO's and RTO's require you have non-volatile power covering those units. Natural gas units are preferred to cover the these volatile units because they can be spun up so quickly. But there's a catch to that too - you have to put your natural gas order in 24 hours in advance of use and you have to pay for whatever you don't use. It's not like residential where your furnace just kicks on and gas is available and you get billed for it. Nope. You have to preorder your gas. If your wind and solar are covering the load then you're going to pay a fine for not taking all of your gas delivery. The utility business has its complexities!
Who are you trying to prevent from taking the handle? Seems like it's either a) adults - that have a legit use for it now, b) soon to be adults that will have a legit use for it sooner than your kid does.
It's a very unique name combination, no one else on earth would have a legitimate use for it. It's more a matter of just making sure I own and control it so I can give it to them later. I'm thinking more of a situation with spammers/scammers registering the address or something.
It drives up the price of real estate, all of it. Which means that for those Canadians that bought - it's a huge segment of their net worth. And they vote.
While you may disagree with the current elected government in India (I do as well), it is the definition of democracy. Majority of the population did want that government. Also, in India a person managed to lead a protest, form an entire new party and become the chief minister of a state because people were behind him. That is democracy as well. Tell me when has that happened in the states in recent times.
> Also, in India a person managed to lead a protest, form an entire new party and become the chief minister of a state because people were behind him. That is democracy as well. Tell me when has that happened in the states in recent times.
This seems like a really specific request. I'm not sure what aspect you're looking for. But for starters, here's an interesting wikipedia page for governors that went outside the major parties:
I think the point that GP made doesn’t have any equivalence in US two party system.
The person in question really did start a new party that was not coupled with any of the existing parties and won the capital state with crushing majority.
That is a sign of a working democracy in my book. I am not sure if US is one of the better version of a well functioning democracy given its two party system. I recall that it was one of the things that the founding fathers were afraid of when they were debating the constitution.
Jesse Ventura wasn't affiliated with either party, along with a lot of people on that list.
The founding fathers were afraid of democracy itself and put in many explicit constraints on it, never mind undesired self-organization like the two parties. So it's easy to find perspectives from which the US isn't the archytype democracy. But what's the point? That it somehow a bit farther down the road to authoritarianism as a result? I'm not sure about that.
They are state governors, but did the state have a majority that wasn't either of the two main parties? That's the point. In India, in this particular instance, majority of the population were sick of the political parties in the country, there were protests and then this person created an entire new party and this party went to get elected in the capital state. I think that's the what democracy should allow you to do.
I'm not sure what you are asking. Governors aren't selected by parliament or something. In every state in the US, Governors are elected by voting in elections, as are senators and representatives at every level. Those independent candidates won a plurality or possibly majority in the state elections. That's how they become governors. If an independent becomes governor, it means a plurality of people voted for them and against the candidates from the major parties.
If you mean the voters joined the new party apart from the election, by registering as a member. Then that happens in some states too. In many states voters don't even register for a party. In many others, the majority or plurality are registered as independent.
Can you just acknowledge the fact that it's hard to have nuanced sides while standing as a candidate in America ? I don't know what you're going on about, even your president with his anti establishment rhetoric needed a nomination from 1 of the parties.
I'm chatting about the history of third-party and independent governors in the USA since someone asked. Then responding to follow-up questions that seemed to not understand the information I provided. As for your question, I'm not interested in getting into partisan or country-bashing nonsense. Not really interested in discussing the presidency either since it's such a toxic topic for the last generation. Try reddit.
If we are on about history of third-party, is there a state that had a majority candidates from the 3rd party? I feel like the entire structure in US setup such that at the end of the day, power belongs to the two main parties and it's impossible to bypass that, even if people might want to. Anyways, my point was when GP said China was a low bar to clear while calling India a democracy, which felt like they didn't consider India to be a true democracy.
Again I must be missing something since I thought the wikipedia page addressed this. Perhaps you looked only at a few people on that list. This party has had a successful candidate in Minnesota:
As for what the two parties, they are pretty entrenched, but not 100 percent given the examples I noted. But also note that both are broad coalitions, not under any small group or individual's control. Rather than having completely separate parties that operate together as a coalition in parliamentary systems. It amounts to basically the same effect. The Democratic party is a coalition of Liberals, progressives, certain immigrant and minority groups, unions, and centrists. The Republicans are a smaller coalition of conservative christians, neocons, moderates. There's some other factions in both. Neocons for example, are essentially a group that switched parties, considered liberals who side with conservatives on foreign policy. In any given election some faction might gain the advantage and win with their nominee. Meanwhile a large chunk of the country identifies as "independent" of these parties. Also note that primaries are essentially democratic too, with the nominee having to win votes to gain the nomination. Not smoke-filled backroom meetings or something. In some states, anyone can vote in a party's primary.
If it was a one-party system, then clearly not democratic, sure. But a two-party system isn't such a clear problem to me. More of a process difference.
The person you are responding to is based in Ontario and is therefore probably Canadian. I'm not informed enough to have an opinion on Canadian politics, but I do know that Canada is has provinces, not states. ;)
Given a choice between two neighbourhoods, would I want to move to one that has grow ops or a high rate of social services checkups? Some of that data is already easily available and I know it is being used by real estate agents already. The people that can avoid these neighbourhoods will, which leaves only those that can't. Gentrification.
The neighbourhood I grew up in was heavily mixed (along social strata) which prevented these problems from arising in the first place.
> The people that can avoid these neighbourhoods will, which leaves only those that can't.
You’re describing people who are stuck in impoverished (correct me if I’m mistaken) where but gentrifications refer to the restoration and upgrading of deteriorated urban property by middle-class or affluent people, often resulting in displacement of lower-income people.
Gentrification has a lot to do with location in proximity to a city center, transportation, waterfront, etc. Just because a neighborhood is safer doesn’t necessarily mean wealthy people will move there, drive up property values indirectly forcing out the poorer residents.
I’m not saying this won’t accelerate gentrification of desirable areas currently full of crime in-turn currently avoided wealthier people. But a cost effective solution which results in a net decrease in crime (not a zero sum game where a neighborhood gentrifies and the crime just shifts elsewhere), would likely benefit mostly lower income individuals then most.
Obviously solution nothing is universal beneficial and there is the obvious concern of humans progressing being enslave by black-box AI systems but it has potential to be very beneficial if rolled out in a publicly auditable way.
Time in the market applies to all the market, there's no qualifier for just a bull market - that would be timing the market. Vast majority of people cannot time the market.
