I have made most of my karma off of trashing Teams, and while it is "better" than it was before (I rarely get infinite loops crashing my browser now), it is hard to call it acceptable.
Yesterday I was supposed to have a call. I have the app open and it never once let me know that there was a meeting. The entire purpose is supposed to be collaboration with other people; if they aren't going to notify me on the web app, what's the point?
I know a lot of it is because of their need to support an infinite number of potential configurations, but if it had been a protocol instead of an app, we would have had the perfect frontend by now. (But then, how would they be stealing all of my data?)
> Yesterday I was supposed to have a call. I have the app open and it never once let me know that there was a meeting.
Lol, we use WebEx, and someone actually went and developed an internal app to make it usable by piloting WebEx through accessibility APIs (including starting the call a minute before the meeting starts).
This will be met with consternation, not appreciation. The people who comment about brake dust in EV topics are the people who complain about birds when talking about windmills.
We know it is disingenuous because no one cares about this when discussing overweight trucks and SUVs. Good news about a reduction in pollution from EVs? Can't have that. It's like the "At what price" meme around headlines about China.
Going forward, I will downvote any comment about "brake pollution" and "tire pollution" that does not begin with - specifically - "This is a bigger issue for large, gas-powered trucks and SUVs", and invite you all to do so to. The association of these shitty comments with EV topics is as organic as lighter fluid.
The theory is that they're heavier so more brake dust ... but that is offset to a degree by regen braking (which hybrids have too). It's a silly argument though. Brake dust is definitely bad but the idea of keeping ICE cars to minimize brake dust doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Please don't downvote comments because you don't agree with the argument. Downvotes should be for comments that add little to the discussion.
I agree that discussing weight with regard to EVs, without acknowledging that (in the US) the fashion is for big heavy ICE cars is just as polluting is disingenuous.
That said, outside the US the trend is for smaller cars, and equally the weight of a small EV is not hugely dissimilar to a common ICE car.
Frankly I'm not sure there's a whole lot to say about tire dust- cars need tires. EVs generate less brake dust. If there's a tire dust discussion to be had, then that discussion is independent of the vehicle fuel source.
And wouldn't you say that when a comment is made in bad faith, or misrepresents (deliberately or not) a major component of its argument, that it adds little to the discussion?
It's all well and good to have high-minded ideals of pure intellectual discussion, but in the real world, there are many people who are coming into the comments with a strong political agenda in mind, and are both willing and able to make disingenuous and bad-faith comments to support that agenda.
Presenting the increased tire dust of heavier vehicles as being an exclusive property of EVs—a bright-line differentiator between them and ICE cars—is disingenuous and misrepresents the facts. I think it's reasonable to say that makes it "add little to the discussion".
I understand that it can feel like you're having to make the same point over and over (I certainly feel like that sometimes) but personally I'm more inclined to give the person the benefit of the doubt when it comes to good faith.
Out in the world there are common misconceptions which are propagated by vested interests and believed by many at first glance.
Having the opportunity to see those arguments, and rebuff them , (over and over again) is key to balancing the public discourse.
I agree, some argue in bad faith, that's going to be true in some cases. But I think most times it's honest misconceptions.
As a personal policy, that can work: you can always choose which conversations to engage in and which to ignore.
As a site policy, it cannot. If you demand that everyone coming there in good faith treat everyone else as also operating in good faith, even when they open with arguments that are very common when sealioning people, you are telling every troll, every bad actor, everyone paid by a massive corporation or a foreign government to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about particular political or economic positions that this site is ripe for their use.
I've seen far too many people even on here "just asking questions", or using the Gish Gallop, or other techniques of bad faith debate, to believe that it can possibly be a good idea to treat everyone as if they are good-faith rational actors seeking open debate for the sake of finding the truth.
If you're still not convinced, do some research on Brandolini's Law [0], also known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle. It really does take massively more effort to refute bullshit with truth than it does to spin bullshit everywhere.
I feel we should have an independent source by now if that was true. Thousands of Chinese suppliers all taking losses to keep market share seems unlikely. A government program would have been clearly shown too. I think it is more likely that goods are being labelled with different origins and being imported through preexisting treaties like NAFTA (I forgot the Trumpian name for his negotiated version), or that Economists are shameless modern tortoise shell baking shamans that we need to sacrifice to appease angry dead ancestors.
I live in a bubble in Calgary, and am from Montreal originally. Despite that, I saw lines of people waiting to sign petitions for separation in smaller cities. People who were happy to have their photos taken while they are signing petitions for separation from Canada.
There are some cultural factors in Alberta which draw it closer to the US than to Ontario and Quebec. Libertarianism, pro-fossil fuels, differences wrt firearms, differences in attitudes to crime and punishment, etc... The perception is that previous compromises around these items are slowly frayed to appease voting blocks in other provinces (mostly Quebec).
Then, the dirty reality; the Canadian economy has never been "great", at least in my lifetime. Nearly my whole class at university wound up going to the US, because one couldn't get a decent paying job in Canada in a lot of fields. Even our current prime minister did a ton of his work abroad. If separating (IE: joining the US) was only an economic question, only a tiny elite would support remaining a part of Canada.
The question Alberta separatists wish to ask is much less dishonest than the Quebec separation question in 95, which leads me to believe they are much more confident about their success. I wouldn't rule it out.
That might be the rhetoric, but separation means joining the US. The experience of landlocked country would be one of getting taken advantage of by every country around it.
There is a good 20% of people in Alberta who would vote for separation today. Take a close look, they aren't voting to be an independent country surrounded by a hostile country around it and a superpower that hijacks oil tankers to the south.
It is a stupid idea because the level of changes that would have to happen to everything would be much, much more than people realize. But Brexit has shown us that people will vote for stupid things if they are sold by trusted-but-dishonest actors
Then Danielle moved the goalposts to make it easier for the Independence folks:
Signature collection period: January 3 to May 2, 2026
Number of signatures required for a successful petition: 177,732
(10% of the total number votes cast in the 2023 Provincial General Election).
I feel that neither justifies 2 generations of separatist blackmail, and the use of holocaust terms for constitution failures between two Quebecois men (Lesvesque and Trudeau) is inappropriate — but completely and utterly unsurprising for the overwrought self-pitying elite of the province. Moreover, it is no surprise that Quebec rejects the constitution but simultaneously uses the Not Withstanding clause to block language and religious rights. It is like the bully in Doraemon — what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine.
That said I do grudgingly admire Lesvesque and felt he was much better than all of his successors. You could tell he had a philosophy of a Quebec that could be an actual nation, not merely a collection of childless people who spoke French and simply emulated France.
There is no Lesvesque in Alberta and that is why Alberta will never be a nation; only a gas station for the US. Still, if the only thing people value is income maybe that's the better outcome.
When I worked at a Coke bottler in Japan, we had similar issues with product.
Stuff that didn't sell was called "Flush Out" and had to be disposed of.
You couldn't legally just dump the contents without paying money so I made an app that let employees get cases for shipping costs. It was popular, even though we were usually talking about weird flavours that no one liked (stuff akin to Apple Ginger ale)
They eventually got rid of it, but I was already out of the company so I didn't know the reason.
> It was popular, even though we were usually talking about weird flavours that no one liked (stuff akin to Apple Ginger ale)
I know this is beside the point, but Apple Ginger Ale sounds legitimately awesome. I’ve never seen that flavor before, but now I really want to try it haha.
I remember liking it too; it was actually a Schweppes product but as my boss said, it was straight to flush out. The Japan market just doesn't like sweet drinks. The top drink was green tea, which probably caused consternation as it was so expensive to manufacture.
In retrospect I miss the teas from Japan more than any of the weird flavours we had. Thankfully one can make them oneself but there is something special about going to a corner store and having relatively healthy options instead of a hundred flavours of sugar water.
I always thought it was the same as a solid part of his specific cohort and generation; excessive entertainment-style news consumption through the normal rabble rousers. For a group of people who were obsessed with telling me that wrestling was fake, they sure were a group of marks when a guy with a gravelly voice told them what to think.
I didn't know about his comments about Black people until today. It's more than a bit pathetic that he devolved into colour-based absurdities so late in life. For someone who could pattern match the reality of life at a large company so effectively, it's unfortunate he couldn't realize he was being played by 4chan trolls and fellow travelers in the media.
The one that intrigued me more was circa the 2017 era when Tesla was supposedly an energy company. That might have justified their valuation at the time, but it turned out to be dishonest spin.
Yet again, there are no adults and the shallow fabric of society fails to conceal the greed boner under the sheets.
Being in Australia, we have the benefit of getting US, EU, CN, and other vehicle brands, as well as solar and battery suppliers.
Tesla sells a lot of home batteries, but there are numerous other brands.
Tesla's cars are old now, the difference is the Hyundai, Kia, Geely, ZeekR, BYD, Polestar, Mini, Lexus, Porsche, BMW, Mercedes and other brands are cars that happen to be powered by batteries, not some magic carpet of future ideas.
I'm surprised by this; I have it also and was running through OpenCode but I gave up and moved back to Claude Code. I was not able to get it to generate any useful code for me.
How did you manage to use it? I am wondering if maybe I was using it incorrectly, or needed to include different context to get something useful out of it.
I've been using it for the last couple months. In many cases, it was superior to Gemini 3 Pro. One thing about Claude Code, it delegates certain tasks to glm-4.5 air and that drops performance a ton. What I did is set the default models to 4.6 (now 4.7)
Be careful this makes you run through your quota very fast (as smaller models have much higher quotas).
When Claude screws up a task I use Codex and vice versa. It helps a lot when I'm working on libraries that I've never touched before, especially iOS related.
(Also, I can't imagine who is blessed with so much spare tome that they would look down on an assistant that does decent work)
> When Claude screws up a task I use Codex and vice versa
Yeah, it feels really strange sometimes. Bumping up against something that Codex seemingly can't work out, and you give it to Claude and suddenly it's easy. And you continue with Claude and eventually it gets stuck on something, and you try Codex which gets it immediately. My guess would be that the training data differs just enough for it to have an impact.
I think Claude is more practically minded. I find that OAI models in general default to the most technically correct, expensive (in terms of LoC implementation cost, possible future maintenance burden, etc) solution. Whereas Claude will take a look at the codebase and say "Looks like a webshit React app, why don't you just do XYZ which gets you 90% of the way there in 3 lines".
But if you want that last 10%, codex is vital.
Edit: Literally after I typed this just had this happen. Codex 5.2 reports a P1 bug in a PR. I look closely, I'm not actually sure it's a "bug". I take it to Claude. Claude agrees it's more of a product behavioral opinion on whether or not to persist garbage data, and offer it's own product opinion that I probably want to keep it the way it is. Codex 5.2 meanwhile stubbornly accepts the view it's a product decision but won't seem to offer it's own opinion!
Correct, this has been true for all GPT-5 series. They produce much more "enterprise" code by default, sticking to "best practices", so people who need such code will much prefer them. Claude models tend to adapt more to the existing level of the codebase, defaulting to more lightweight solutions. Gemini 3 hasn't been out long enough yet to gauge, but so far seems somewhere in between.
>> My guess would be that the training data differs just enough for it to have an impact.
It's because performance degrades over longer conversations, which decreases the chance that the same conversation will result in a solution, and increases the chance that a new one will. I suspect you would get the same result even if you didn't switch to a different model.
So not really, certainly models degrade by some degree on context retrieval. However, in Cursor you can just change the model used for the exchange, it still has the same long context. You'll see the different model strengths and weaknesses contrasted.
They just have different strengths and weaknesses.
if claude is stuck on a thing but we’ve made progress (even if that progress is process of elimination) and it’s 120k tokens deep, often when i have claude distill our learnings into a file.. and /clear to start again with said file, i’ll get quicker success
which is analogous to taking your problem to another model and ideally feeding it some sorta lesson
i guess this is a specific example but one i play out a lot. starting fresh with the same problem is unusual for me. usually has a lesson im feeding it from the start
Yesterday I was supposed to have a call. I have the app open and it never once let me know that there was a meeting. The entire purpose is supposed to be collaboration with other people; if they aren't going to notify me on the web app, what's the point?
I know a lot of it is because of their need to support an infinite number of potential configurations, but if it had been a protocol instead of an app, we would have had the perfect frontend by now. (But then, how would they be stealing all of my data?)
reply