The internet is 30-40 years old, and has brought an entirely new paradigm to the world. It has abolished distances, disproportionately increasing the reach of a few.
I'd love to share your optimism that things will keep improving in the long run, but I don't see what you're basing that off.
Looking at $6.5/hr at the moment. 4o is quite expensive and I'm turning it down for tomorrow. Experiencing some amount of spam and troll traffic -- totally unexpected and looking to implement guardrails.
The answer made my heart a little warmer. I must say I share that naive worldview from my small corner of the world. At least - in some very rare cases - until proven otherwise.
Forget the parenthesis, embrace the automatic indentation and code source manipulations that only perfectly balanced homoiconic expressions can give you.
> Upgrade apps in a fraction of the time with the Amazon Q Developer Agent for code transformation (limit 4,000 lines of submitted code per month)
4k loc per month seems terribly low? Any request I make could easily go over that. I feel like I'm completely misunderstanding (their fault though) what they actually meant.
Edit: No I don't think I'm misunderstanding, if you want to go over this they direct you to a pay-per-request plan and you are not capped at $20 anymore
You are confusing Amazon Q in the editor (like "transform"), and Amazon Q on the CLI. The editor thing has some stuff that costs extra after exceeding the limit, but the CLI tool (that acts similar to Claude Code) is a separate feature that doesn't have this restriction. See https://aws.amazon.com/q/developer/pricing/?p=qdev&z=subnav&..., under "Console" see "Chat". The list is pretty accurate with what's "included" and what costs extra.
I've been running this almost daily for the past months without any issues or extra cost. Still just paying $20
Do try! The free tier doesn't cost anything and is enough to tinker around with. You don't even need an AWS account for it, it'll prompt you to create a new separate account specifically for Q
I'm also confused by that, but it could just be the model being agreeable. I've seen multiple examples posted online though where it's fairly clear that the COT output is not included in subsequent turns. I don't believe Anthropic is public about it (could be wrong), but I know that the Qwen team specifically recommend against including COT tokensfrom previous inferences.
Claude has some awareness of its CoT. As an experiment, it's easy, for example, to ask Claude to "think of a city, but only reply with the word 'ready' and next to ask "what is the first letter of the city you thought of?"
Oops! I tried a couple experiments after writing this, and I believe I was mistaken, though I don't know how. It appears Claude was simply playing along, and convinced me it could remember the choices it secretly made. I must either have given it a tell, or perhaps it guessed the same answers twice in a row.
Of course, amazingly that's one of it's best features, enabling you to actually speak to a real person. (it's a type of personal connection that fleshy robots have, for some reason, derided.)
But I digress, excusing your bad form of answering a question with a question, I am interested in your opinion of the possible conundrum of the two phone idea.
My bad, I didn't knew you wanted a serious answer, I should have known that some people would seriously consider having three separate phones for texting, calling and everything else.
For a serious answer then: Rather than segregating phone calling vs the rest, if you want to go to the hassle of maintaining multiple phones, I would put sensitive apps (i.e. bank apps) separated from the rest.
But ultimately it depends on which threat model you are trying to mitigate. Most people would worry about protecting their financial information. If you are worried about possible backslash from a fascist state, you shouldn't use normal phone calls at all and switch to a privacy app.
OTOH, a dedicated phone just to make phone calls makes sense if your threat model is your significant other.
I'd love to share your optimism that things will keep improving in the long run, but I don't see what you're basing that off.
reply