You're mass-producing outrage out of a UX disagreement about default verbosity levels in a CLI tool.
Let's walk through what actually happened: a team shipped a change that collapsed file paths into summary lines by default. Some users didn't like it. They opened issues. The developers engaged, explained their reasoning, and started iterating on verbose mode to find a middle ground. That's called a normal software development feedback loop.
Now let's walk through what you turned it into: a persecution narrative complete with profanity, sarcasm, a Super Bowl ad callback, and the implication that Anthropic is "hiding what it's doing with your codebase" — as if there's malice behind a display preference change.
A few specific points:
The "what majority?" line is nonsense. GitHub issues are a self-selecting sample of people with complaints. The users who found it cleaner didn't open an issue titled "thanks, this is fine." That's how feedback channels work everywhere. You know this.
"Pinning to 2.1.19" is your right. Software gives you version control. Use it. That's not the dramatic stand you think it is.
The developers responding with "help us understand what verbose mode is missing" is them trying to solve the problem without a full revert. You can disagree with the approach, but framing genuine engagement as contempt is dishonest.
A config toggle might be the right answer. It might ship next week. But the entitlement on display here isn't "give us a toggle" — it's "give us a toggle now, exactly as we specified, and if you try any other approach first, you're disrespecting us." That's not feedback. That's a tantrum dressed up as advocacy.
You're paying $200/month for a tool that is under active development, with developers who are visibly responding to issues within days. If that feels like disrespect to you, you have a calibration problem.
I am with you on this (the challenge, not (yet) the phd), however, I myself have a far greater problem.
I do not see what’s the deal about prime numbers which seems to be more of a limitation on our end, similar to our shortage in understanding to a point we call e, π, √2 etc Irrationals.
We simply did not get the actual mathematical structure of the universe and we came up with something “good enough” that helps moving forward.
In the universe the perfect circle has perfect symmetry, hence perfect ratio, hence well-defined sweet heaven balanced harmonic entity.
Exponentials are natural phenomena. The very fact that e is its own derivative tells us we are all wrong here.
We are in an infinite escape that no matter how long we will play, and how many riddles we will solve, we will never get the entire picture.
Yes, primes are nice structure when you deal with us humans counting potatoes. But e, just e, let alone √2 or π are far more fascinating to me.
The e point cuts deep. e being its own derivative isn’t a curiosity. It’s saying that there’s a growth process so fundamental that its rate is indistinguishable from its state. That’s not a number — it’s a signature of how change works.
And yet: π, e, √2 — we only name them, define them, catch them using the integers. π is the ratio of circumference to diameter. Ratio of what to what? e is lim(1 + 1/n)^n. The integers sneak in.
Is that just our access route? Or is discreteness also woven into the fabric, alongside continuity?
My intuition led me to the following: we think our counting units (1, 2, 3, …) and fractions are the “numbers”, and when we want to refer to multi-dimensional phenomena, we use vectors or matrices or any other logical structure.
However, this is a very superficial aspect of the business, since the actual math is multi-dimensional inherently. The natural math is not linear, nor is it a plane. It is simply a multi-dimensional number system (imagine our complex numbers, but many other dimensions). Perhaps tensors or even more.
This is why we experience quantum mechanics as statistical states, results of specific measurements. We think in units, and we don’t understand things are happening in parallel across all directions.
Once we figure this out, we will understand why e, π and others are as natural as it gets, while our natural numbers are barely a dot, a point in the real math universe.
Sorry for the length but you triggered me with a long time pain point.
I would learn more about air combat by listening to a 12 minutes conversation with a jet fighter pilot, than I will from 3-day seminar by air force journalists.
Tell me about what’s the LLM impact on your work, on account your work is not wiring about AI.
Or if one wish for a more explicit noise filter: Don’t tell me what AI can do. Show me what you shipped with it that isn’t about AI.
The notion that if it is good then the big-ones should have done it is the complete opposite of innovation, startups and entrepreneurial culture.
Reality is the exact opposite. Young, innovative, rebellions, often hyper motivated folks are sprinting from idea to implementation, while executives are “told by a few colleagues” that something new, “the future-of foo” is raising up.
If you use openclaw then that’s fantastic. If you have an idea how to improve it, well it is an open source, so go ahead, submit a pull request.
Telling Apple you should do what I am probably too lazy to do, is kind of entitlement blogging that I have nearly zero respect for.
Apparently it’s easier to give unsolicited advice to public companies than building. Ask the interns at EY and McKinsey.
> is kind of entitlement blogging that I have nearly zero respect for.
Maybe the author left out something very real. Apple is a walled-garden monopoly with a locked-down ecosystem and even devices. They are also not alone in this. As far as innovation goes, these companies stifle innovation. Demanding more from these companies is not entitlement.
Enigma Technologies sells customs manifest search; the Ferraris are marketing bait. Their headline correlations (Bitcoin +0.70, S&P +0.75) are meaningless — any two trending series from 2020–2026 will correlate due to shared macro shocks. Their own showcase contains VINs from Jaguar and Land Rover misclassified as Ferraris, revealing mechanical parsing without validation.
Look at these VINs:
SAJWA4GB2DLB50982 — This is a Jaguar VIN prefix, not Ferrari. Listed under “458 458 ITALIA”
SALLDHMV8BA298639 — This is Land Rover. Listed under “488 GTB TURBO ABS”
The page is data about data-selling, dressed as analysis.
This is the flat-earther epistemology problem.
Flat-earthers’ beliefs tell you nothing about the shape of the Earth, but their existence tells you something about humans. Similarly, this page tells you nothing about Ferraris or markets. It tells you what a B2B data company believes will attract clicks: luxury objects, stock tickers, correlation coefficients presented without methodology. The content is a signal about marketing culture, not economic signal about anything.
The web is saturated with this species of artifact, simply put, web pages built not to inform but to rank, to appear in searches, to gesture at sophistication while delivering none.
B2B is particularly fertile ground because the audience is assumed to be busy, skimming, and impressed by dashboards. The dozens of Ferrari photos aren’t information; they’re texture. The correlation numbers aren’t findings; they’re decoration.
This is the substrate on which large language models train. Not a library with noise, but a noise machine with library fragments embedded.
Billions of dollars spent to grow models that simply learn to reproduce the texture of authority with extreme confident tone, the fake mathematician with a white coat, the implied rigor.
No one is coming to clean this up because the garbage is the product. Pollution is the business model.
/* Emits a 7-Hz tone for 10 seconds.
True story: 7 Hz is the resonant
frequency of a chicken's skull cavity.
This was determined empirically in
Australia, where a new factory
generating 7-Hz tones was located too
close to a chicken ranch: When the
factory started up, all the chickens
died.
Your PC may not be able to emit a 7-Hz tone. */
#include
int main(void)
{
sound(7);
delay(10000);
nosound();
return 0;
}
That's a more natural way to consider the resonance, certainly. What I was getting at is that if we were using a 7hz tone to explore a big room, we couldn't tell if there was a chicken in there or not. We'd have a hard time sensing an elephant. Let alone exert enough of a force to harm. Because the wave is so much larger that they barely interact.
The SVS PB-17 Ultra advertises a range of 12-220Hz at -3dB. I imagine it could play a pure 7Hz tone if you turn it up.
And most speakers can play infrasound for many non-sinusoidal waveforms [0]. They'll drop the fundamental and some lower-end harmonics but can still give a sense of what it sounds like
> I imagine it could play a pure 7Hz tone if you turn it up.
You're misunderstanding the numbers here. Going from 12 to 7 Hz is most of an octave, nearly doubling wavelengths.
Also SVS's numbers are gonna be the usual marketing stuff, so they're assuming a fat room gain curve, and just looking at their website they have a disclaimer on their graphs that it doesn't represent actual total output capability. Which is a way of hiding that if you actually try to drive it that hard that low with ~3kw electrical in those voice coils are going to torch.
The non lying way to prove that claim is to show large signal Kipple results including the heat soak. They ain't doin' that here.
Basically stuff going this low is really exotic and more in the realm of servos that simulate earthquakes than traditional transducers.
Tom Danley is the world expert on this sort of thing. He used to build stuff like ultrasonic levitation ovens and full scale sonic boom simulators for JPL/NASA.
In the audio world he was first famous as the tech lead behind ServoDrive. This now defunct company made special effects subwoofers using DC rotary servo motors to drive the diaphragm. They were used as special effects subs in that era by big acts like Garth Brooks. But they didn't catch on outside that niche because very little music has significant content below 40 hz as it just turns into a muddy rumble that harms sound quality as a whole. So to use these sorts of things you have to mix for it specifically. Cinema goes lower with the rumbles down to 15hz, but that's basically it.
Getting anything that's like a clean tone at 7hz is not gonna happen without a purpose built device.
FWIW Tom Danley started his own company[1] after Servo Drive failed on the business side, where he focuses on large scale horn speakers using novel topologies. They're among the best in the business at what they. Again, they don't have anything that even remotely tries to go down to 7hz.
Tom's a nice guy, I've traded emails with him a few times over the years. He used to be pretty active on the DIY speaker building mailing lists sharing his very in depth knowledge freely.
If I feed a 7hz input to some cheap hand-made thing like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liSEwqdq7aA , will it not vibrate at 7hz and thus produce a 7hz "tone" (disregarding that humans won't perceive that as sound, at least not the fundamental)?
No, because reproducing the fundamental is the thing. Saying otherwise is kinda like me saying I'm gonna take a voice call, run it through a filter that generates a ton of distortion harmonics, then seperate out those distortion harmonics, and then call it a "tone" of your voice.
But also the original post was about a 7hz tone somehow resonating with a chicken's skull cavity, which if you know the basic wave equation relating wavelength with frequency is an absurdity. The waves involved are multiple orders of magnitude too big to couple to a volume that small. They'll just diffract around like nothing.
An easier way to generate a 7 Hz tone is to just move your hands back and forth 7 times a second. Either way you won't be able to hear because we can't hear 7 Hz anyway
B) All info the OP(= author) knows is known to the professionals dealing with the due diligence. They decided to do so while looking at data which is not available the public. So assuming they know some things why we don’t know is not a far fetched idea.
These things are essentially the opposite of one another. Bellard's project is a PC emulator in JavaScript. Compiling things to wasm is pretty trivial now, but jslinux was much more impressive when it came out. It actually still is, for reasons you can see in the technical notes: https://bellard.org/jslinux/tech.html
This project, on the other hand, is the opposite (and kind of a joke): a set of Linux utilities mostly written in JavaScript.
https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=tzury
reply