The main reason I find myself using Opus is because it's a better communicator. (Yes, I know it's better in some areas like frontend vs. others but this is not significant enough for my purposes.)
So this change has actually forced a reckoning of sorts. Maybe the best option is to outsource the thinking to another model, and then send it back to Opus to package up.
Ironically this is how the non-agent works too to an extent.
Somewhat spicy take - if the people in Area 120 were among the top 10% of Googlers you worked with, they probably weren't the right builders to start a new vertical.
Most of what makes people effective at large companies is neutral or negative value when applied to very early-stage companies.
Tailwind CSS is fast fashion. Gives you a fresh look in a cost/time-effective way, entirely not sustainable w.r.t. the environment, but sells like hot cakes in any case.
The reality for better or worse is it's good enough for most companies and engineers.
I have an S and the cost is $2k a year after tax, about on par with the insurance costs of my old Camry. Probably worth shopping around a bit more if you’re still in the process.
Interestingly enough, Substack is heading down the same direction - when you get linked to an article, it now forces a full screen popup on you asking if you want to subscribe or just read.
> Assuming a neutral tone unless specified otherwise, it's always the best bet.
I actually believe most writing is non-neutral in nature. Every word choice and sentence structure conveys meaning, intentional or not.
For example, why did Dante describe the sight of a lion as making "the air tremble" rather than cause "a stillness in the air"? Or a slightly more powerful variant, "a silence in the air"? My guess is that he wanted to call attention to how dominating the lion's presence was, that even the air was humbled/scared. That's how intimidating and commandeering the lion was. (Very intentional word choice here by me to pair with enraged!)
Maybe that's the wrong interpretation, but we also have people who study exactly this! The nuance of literary works and their meanings.
The article mentions a difference between 'lol' and 'haha' - if you boil it down, is that really so different from 'the air tremble' vs. 'a stillness in the air'? It's word choice again, ultimately.
> Also, as I've said before, improper grammar could also mean "I don't know the grammar of your language well enough", if I'm writing French, I make a lot of mistakes because I don't use it very often, so the tone is the last of my concerns and the people reading it could easily think it's from a 9 year old kid who hasn't finished primary school yet.
Maybe this is why we disagree - I believe that once relative fluency is assumed, tone becomes more important.
Mandarin is a great example here. Most people who are just starting to learn Mandarin focus on vocabulary, pronouns, etc. But once you get to a more advanced stage, it reveals a really unique twist.
Informal 'modal particles' [1] are optional in sentences but also can significantly change the mood. You'd never use them in formal writing (they're not exactly professional), but in practice people use them in everyday written communications. Interestingly enough, they're by default pronounced in a neutral tone but can also be inflected with more emotion even though Mandarin is already a tonal language.
English doesn't have modal particles, and the closest equivalent I've seen are these Gen Z Netiquettes (which aren't only for Gen Z as a few people have pointed out).
---
As an example:
1. 吃饭: eat food
2. 吃饭吧: eat food, we should (friendly but also commanding)
3. 吃饭吗: eat food, want to? (friendly but more suggestive)
---
In English, you could write it like this instead:
1. food
2. we should get food
3. want to get food?
---
But that's not exactly right, because Mandarin also has formal sentences for those forms:
1. 吃饭: eat food
2. 应该吃饭: should eat food
3. 要不要吃饭: want to eat food or not?
---
So closer parallels in English instead could be:
1. food
2. food :eyes_emoji: [2]
3. food? :drooling_face_emoji: [3]
---
And as the article mentions, you can even merge 2 modal particles into a new one that's equal to the combined mood of both. For extra nuance!
e.g. 吃饭了吗: eat food, have you already done it? (friendly)
I think there's some truth to the idea that emojis are a bit of madness (but are also here to stay), but I disagree that nuance doesn't exist in written communication. It's existed for hundreds of years already, as mentioned above in the Dante example. Emojis are just a modern-day version of nuance.
In your original post, you mention:
> Not doing it [capitalization] proves that people either don't care or don't know the basic rules of the language, which says a lot more than doing it properly.
The third (more charitable) possibility is that people are intentionally doing it for nuance. For example, I capitalize in formal emails with customers but use lowercase with friends. My guess is that most people I work with do the same, and more importantly know others are also aware of this.
So at work, I can either choose to treat my coworkers as closer to customers or closer to friends. You can likely guess what that means. (<-- another example of a short sentence where tone is lost - was I amused? condescending? factual? <spoiler> it was the first </spoiler>)
Lastly, while you may personally disagree with the existence of nuance, it's hard to deny that a large chunk of people do infer nuance from text - just looking at this HN thread alone! So the takeaway I'd lightly (and not firmly!) suggest again is that it's worth optimizing for others in certain situations even if it seems like madness.
That's fair, but your writing style mostly optimizes for you, your comfort, and your speed. And I say that as someone who started memorizing SAT words at the age of 8 - most people actually prefer to read a high school level (myself included in work contexts).
I didn't learn this lesson the hard way until I was past my mid-20s. When you write something for others, it's far better to optimize for them rather than for yourself. Let's say you spend twice as much time writing something in an 'odd' way, but it gets your 50% more reach or alignment or funding. That's probably actually a great use of your time.
> So, to me, your explanation of why you don't do it sounds like "look at me, I don't follow rules because we are all smart here, right guys? ... right?".
It's not about being contrarian, it's about the tradeoff. Tone is incredibly important in most situations.
When you write with perfect grammar and punctuation, most people don't know how to read into the nuance. Happy? Joyful? Pleased? Content? There's very little, if any, common understanding of the intensity or undertone in those adjectives. Imagine you're working with a new PM and he tells you the team's progress is 'acceptable.' What does that mean exactly? Is he happy with it? Is he mildly annoyed? Does he feel like things are off track and actually wants to talk more?
So how do we build this common understanding? It turns out most people have actually already built up a language with their friends! Through texts/DMs/etc. So when that language is ported over to a work context, most people immediately grasp it.
You can conform to the world or the world can conform to you. <-- A sentence where tone would be helpful.
I think you hit the nail on the head - at a certain point caring about every single rule isn’t effective or is actually net less effective.
On HN I’ll use correct punctuation, grammar, and a wider set of vocabulary because there’s a good chance my message will come across more clearly.
For general emails, I’ll write with simpler language because it’s very much a get-in-get-out activity especially with more senior stakeholders.
For work comms, what’s the value in typing HN-style? Everyone already knows everyone else is smart. I believe communicating tone is more valuable than perfect punctuation and grammar, which make it much harder to get that across.
Or as my grandma used to say - you don’t treat people you want to be treated, you treat them the way they want to be treated.
That's fascinating - even as a kid my sense of smell has been near-nonexistent. Whenever I've read descriptions of powerful smells in books, I've always written them off as overly flowery language.
Reminds me a little generally of how some have an inner voice when they read and others don't.
One thing I’ve gotten better at over the years is identifying the viability of off-the-shelf tools early on. If you minimize subpar tooling at the source, you can mitigate long-term frustration down the line.