The comment I was responding to was talking about Codex usage in the past few months. This is a general feeling about Codex with Claude, not a model-to-model comparison.
I’d argue the opposite. I’ve switched back and forth from one to the other and Opus/Fable has been constantly better than any GPT in my daily work. It’s a bit slower but it does the things right, with as little code as possible, some comments where needed. Codex is faster but you always have to correct it because it got something wrong; it writes tons of code ("let me add a small helper") with obvious comments.
The test suite is the result of these years of years of running in production. Every time you fix a bug, you add a non-regression test to ensure you don’t break it again.
> Clojure’s idiomatic use of maps has proven valuable, but missing required keys, misspelled keys, and invalid values can lead to failures that do not connect to the actual source of the problem (e.g. NPEs) making diagnosis difficult. At the same time, Clojure lacks a simple inline mechanism for functions to document and check the keys they require and accept. Existing tools either separate those expectations from the function itself or couple data shape and data provision.
As long as emojis are used as an _addition_ to text labels I think this is a good thing. The problem arises when they are used _instead_ of labels, although that’s a problem that predates emojis, it’s common with normal icons.
If you design an interface when some actions are only behind icons/emojis (no text, no hover title), expect users like me to click on them just to see what they do.
> Sure… but which ones? How can you know ahead of time?
Experience, mostly, and bit of trial-and-error. For code I use SOTA, but for e.g. translations I use Gemini 3.5 flash, for some other use-cases I use Gemma 4.
No you don't; it's often overkill to use the SOTA models. People want SOTA because it's shiny, but there are a lot of tasks where it's cheaper and more efficient to use other models.
It’s not doable at all. There are millions of people that don’t need a domain but would be happy to be paid $5-10 by some random scammer to hand over their domain.
The outrage is not that LLMs hallucinate; it’s that a search engine presents you with a response to your query that contains wrong information, and hides in a small, hidden-by-default menu that it’s LLM-generated.