The Claude MD is like the documentation you hand to a new engineer on your team that explains details about your code that they wouldn't otherwise know. It's not bad to need one.
Consider that every time you start a session with Claude Code. It's effectively a new engineer. The system doesn't learn like a real person does, so for it to improve over time you need to manually record the insights that for a normal human would be integrated by the natural learning process.
Yes, that's exactly the problem. There's good reasons why any particular team doesn't onboard new engineers each day, going all the way back to Fred Brooks and "adding more people to a late project makes it later".
I certainly could be updating the documentation for new devs very frequently - the problem with devs is that they don't bother reading the documentation.
If you are consistent with how you do your projects you shouldn't need to update CLAUDE.md nearly every day. Early on, I was adjusting it nearly every day for maybe a couple of projects but now I have very little need to make any adjustments.
Often the challenge is users aren't interacting with Claude Code about their rules file. If Claude Code doesn't seem to be working with you ask it why it ignore a rule. Often times it provides very useful feedback to adjust the rules and no longer violate them.
Another piece of advice I can give is to clear your context window often! Early in my start in this I was letting the context window auto compact but this is bad! Your model is it's freshest and "smartest" when it has a fresh context window.
You might be misunderstanding what a CLAUDE.md is. It’s not about fighting the model, rather it’s giving the model a shortcut to get the context it needs to do its work. You don’t have to have one. Ours is 100% written by Claude itself.
Gmail search has been excellent for 20 years. Outlook search is still terrible even with copilot. LLM isn’t the killer feature, a search that works is.
Copilot can search even in PowerPoints. Being able to search your organisation's documents is kind of a killer feature, provided they make it work reliably.
I can't think of a single reason why you would need an LLM to search through PowerPoint files. We have traditional search technology which would be excellent for that!
> can't think of a single reason why you would need an LLM to search through PowerPoint files
Kati’s Research AI is genuinely great at search. It tries to answer your question, but also directly cites resources. This can help you when you’re not sure where the answer to a question lies, and it winds up being in multiple places.
Unless your query is super simple and of low consequence, you still need to open the files. But LLM-powered search is like the one domain (apart from coding) where these fuckers work.
I paid quite a fee to have crave streaming service in canada. It's pretty premium with HBO and that. Yet, all the star trek shows are now behind ads.. several minutes for a 20 minute episode of lower decks. Things are getting out of hand.
That technically is also competition. And if the market offers garbage for money, but the illegal market is free and better, go with the illegal choice.
You'll be treated like a criminal either way with DRM. So... Yeah.
You'd think with the reputation of LLMs being trained on Twitter (pre-Musk radicalization) and Reddit, they'd be better at understanding normal conversation flow since twitter requires short responses and Reddit... while Wall of Text happens occasionally, it's not the typical cadence of the discussion.
Reddit and Twitter don't have human conversations. They have exchanges of confident assertions followed with rebuttals. In fact, both of our comments are perfect demonstrations of exactly that too. Fairly reflective of how LLMs behave — except nobody wants to "argue" with an LLM like Twitter and Reddit users want to.
This is not how humans converse in human social settings. The medium is the message, as they say.
Twitter, Reddit, HN don't always have the consistency of conversation that two people talking do.
Even here, I'm responding to you on a thread that I haven't been in on previously.
There's also a lot more material out there in the format of Stack Exchange questions and answers, Quora posts, blog posts and such than there is for consistent back and forth interplay between two people.
IRC chat logs might have been better...ish.
The cadence for discussion is unique to the medium in which the discussion happens. What's more, the prompt may require further investigation and elaboration prior to a more complete response, while other times it may be something that requires story telling and making it up as it goes.
The AI Overviews are... extremely bad. For most of my queries, Google's AI Overview misrepresents its own citations, or almost as bad, confidently asserts a falsehood or half-truth based on results that don't actually contain an answer to my search query.
I had the same issue with Kagi, where I'd follow the citation and it would say the opposite of the summary.
A human can make sense of search results with a little time and effort, but current AI models don't seem to be able to.
Cheap AI models aren't good at this, anyway, and AI Overviews have to use cheap models since they get used so much. They would be a lot better (still need to check, but they'd be much less stupid) if they used something like GPT-5, but that's just not feasible right now.
From a UX perspective, the AI overview summary being a multi-paragraph summary makes sense since that was a single query that isn't expected to have conversational context. Where it does not make sense is in conversation-based interfaces. Like, the most popular product is literally called "chat".
"I ask a short and vague question and you response with a scrollbar-full of information based on some invalid assumptions" is not, by any reasonable definition, a "chat".
There’s too much emphasis on career growth into leadership. I know so many programmers who simply want to solve the trickiest of technical problems, do good work they can feel proud of, and go home to their families. They want stability more than anything.
There are rare software companies where this is exactly what programmers do. The pay is lower than at FAANG & SV/LA/NYC startups, but work-life balance is great, stability is great, and most of all they get to just focus on doing great work. It's not about making quarterly goals, it's about stewarding (or perhaps gardening) a software project for many years. Engineers grow a lot from all the deep, focused feature work and problem solving.
I worked at such a place for 15 years. The downsides for me were lower pay, no equity, and not getting broad industry experience. I ended up leaving, and I now make a lot more money, but I do miss it.
Google lets people stay at L4 forever and Meta does at L5 with no expectation of further growth.
Yes the expectations are probably still higher, but these companies don’t expect everyone to grow past “mostly self-sufficient engineer” as the parent comment suggests, and for people that do want to do that there’s a full non-management path to director-equivalent IC levels. My impression is that small companies are more likely to treat management as a promotion rather than as a lateral move to a different track (whenever I hear “promoted to manager” I kinda shudder)
Depends on the team — managing can be quite a bit more scope than being a senior IC, depending on expectations for that role. You have broader ownership of technical outcomes over time, even aside from the extra responsibility for growing a team. Managers have all the responsibility of a senior engineer plus more. In that way manager feels to me like a clear promotion to me. Manager vs staff eng, maybe not though.
Management not being a promotion doesn’t mean that managers aren’t (usually—I’ve both been at equal and higher levels than my managers at times) higher levels than their reports. It means that switching to a management role from IC is never a promotion itself (ie always L6 -> M1 in Google/Meta levels) and it never comes with any difference in compensation.
I haven't been a manager, but my understanding is that the higher IC roles assume you're competent enough to do some management-like things if needed ("responsibility without control"), and I also assume that being a manager helps with compensation because they actually teach you how the review process works and let you into the calibration meetings.
the saddest thing is that it used to be possible to do it at at least some of the megacorps too. "senior engineer" (one level below staff) was widely accepted as an "I have reached as high as I want to in my career, and just want to work on interesting problems now", you would basically never get a raise other than cost-of-living but you could do your work and go home and live your life too. that's still doable to an extent but the recurring layoffs have added a measure of precarity to the whole situation so now you have to care more about all the self promotion and "being seen to be doing something" aspects of the job a lot more than you used to.
My raises never matched inflation but then my compensation is like 700k a year. I don't know whether my raise needs to match the cost of living increase.
When I last worked at a FAANG I was very clear on exactly what they had to pay me to put up with their bullshit (I happen to be independently wealthy). This kind of “nominal raise” below inflation actually meant my salary went down, so I quit.
How did you know you're independently wealthy enough to do this? I'm at a stage where I'm sort of there and getting more and more annoyed by large organizational BS, but I keep thinking "one more year is that much more of a buffer."
Funny enough, it happened because of the 2022 layoffs. I figured I'd be fine (and was), but it made me go though the math and realized I was close to escape velocity. On one hand, it made getting excited about uninteresting work that much harder, but because I wasn't quite there with enough buffer, the bad job market still gave me anxiety.
I’ve never known anyone to escape that situation. The “one more year” attitude is pervasive.
In my case it was easy because I didn’t join the company until after I was already independently wealthy, from an IPO (quitting that company was an easy decision too, due to all the magical changes that happen after IPO).
Shipping the frontend for features in a core product area on a large team, just like a lot of other devs here :)
To go into specifics of actual problems solved and do so intelligibly, I'd have to provide specific context, which I'm not comfortable doing here.
It's a lot easier to describe "interesting problems solved" using less identifiable (and more generally interesting) details if one is in platform/infra and/or operating at a Staff+ level -- both of which I have been in the past (and loved it), but am not at the moment.
I'm pretty sure no one is going to be hunting down NDA infractions on HN unless the poster is silly enough to give specifics about the workplace and time at which they solved the problem. If it takes some kind of investigative work to piece together the most basic details, I think that's within the terms of most NDAs anyway.
One of the last times I commented in a thread like this, someone looked at my profile (which has my real name), found me on LinkedIn, and then posted my employer's name in a reply to me, calling out an alleged conflict of interest (you can find it in my comment history and make a decision on that for yourself, if you're curious).
It's not worth the internet points for any of us to post details beyond what we do.
Google’s terminal level is one past new grad and it has a full parallel non-management IC track, I don’t think that they’re pushing people that hard into leadership roles.
That's precisely why programmers become programmers. It baffles me that tech careers put most on a leadership track when people study CS for many years for a reason. Why would I want to throw those technical skills away.
And then what happens when you are looking for your next job and you get a behavioral interview question and all you can say is “I pulled Jira tickets off the board for a decade”?
No, when I ask those questions I want to know how you think about your role and whether you take any ownership of anything or whether you just bumble through as the winds take you.
Importantly everyone is popping a fever reducer only after the fever has already started. Here, with the avian flus, the fever effectively never gets a chance to start.
And it's one thing to pop a fever reducer when you already have antibodies from prior exposure or immunization (which vulnerable groups tend to be in large enough numbers). It's another thing to pop it when you don't.
Thousands of generations of parents had children much younger than today. I think we’re too worried about having everything perfect and de-risked these days. Also realize that parenting is what grew me up. I don’t think people are ever “ready”
It’s a lot more complicated financially for people. You used to not have to rely on dual incomes just to survive. Wealth inequity, housing affordability, and healthcare have all changed. This is why many are choosing to have kids later in life or not even at all because of those reasons and even the environment with climate change it’s a hard decision to make to bring new life into this world to suffer in it.
It's always been financially complicated for most people. The notion of a nuclear family prospering with a single income was mostly only possible for a limited slice of the US population during a few decades post-WWII. If you take a broader historical view that was a brief anomaly.
And it's really weird that anyone would think of something amorphous and uncertain like climate change as a reason not to have children. Even the unlikely worst case scenarios are still going to have less impact than the major wars and plagues that our species has lived through. Some people just lack a sense of perspective.
The family used to tax the grown or mostly-grown children in the form of farm labor. The government in many prior centuries taxed like 2-5% total and the rest was intrafamilial support.
Now it is flipped on its head. Everyone else's families tax your child for their social security, socializing the benefits while still you retain most the costs privately.
Thus tragedy of the commons situation. Why make that investment when you can just tax everyone else's kids and rest assured of your own social security, if they don't pay it you can just have them tossed in a cage or their assets seized, no need to have children yourself.
What you write is the mathematical fact of societies with flattened and upside down population pyramids and wealth transfers from young to old, not sure why you are downvoted.
I don’t know about that. My great grandmas and grandmas didn’t have lots of kids for the labor, they had them because they didn’t have a way to not have them. The grandpas might have though.
Coincidentally, my aunts did not have to have more than 2, and almost every single one had 2 kids.
It feels more like people [used to] have kids because they fucked and hadn't made the connection between that and having children. Them working at whatever you worked at was just necessary so you can help them grow, keep an eye on them, and pay for their upbringing.
> It’s a lot more complicated financially for. You used to not have to rely on dual incomes just to survive.
This is a toxic myth and acts as excuse to blame extrinsic factors that won't see change by the time you'll need them to, even if they can be fixed. Economic life today can be a lot more complicated for middle class professionals and skilled laborers, but they were only ever a fraction of the population in the first place, and families in tougher circumstances than today's middle class folk figured out how to navigate the cards they were dealt.
Emotionally, it legitimately sucks if you come from a comfy middle class background, and have a career that you believed should have been good enough to deliver the life you remember your parents or grandparents having and now doesn't seem to be. It feels unfair and disorienting, maybe. But the fact is that middle class lifestyle is gone for now, and if it does manage to get restored, that restoration will take a generation or two to come.
In the meantime, you have to figure out how to adapt and live that more modest and "more complicated financially" lifestyle. It can be done. Lots of people have been doing it for a long time. Along the way, you'll probably discover that lower class folk who never had the luxuries of your parents and grandparents in the first place were not seeing the world as something they had to "suffer in": they lived in homes, but often with more people in them. They traveled, but more infrequently, less glamorously, and with more pragmatic rationale like "visiting family" than "seeing the world". They had parties, but served simpler dishes on less fancy platters. They had "child care" when two parents worked, but got it by exchanging favors with family or neighbors instead of sending half a paycheck to a prestigious daycare. They laughed, they drank, they had kids. It's not a world of suffering to just not have some luxuries.
Yes and I think many of us remember childhood with rose-colored glasses. My 1970s "middle-class" parents had one car. My mom had to drive my dad to work and pick him up so that she could have a car during the day. When my brother and I were older and in school she worked part time. We lived in a simple ranch-style house. We almost never ate out or went anywhere out of town. Entertainment was going outside and finding something to do. Something like going to a movie was a rare treat. I think of it all fondly today, never with a sense that I had missed out on anything.
Today many young people would consider that life to be stifling, boring, or "suffering" but it was fine. Kids really don't care as long as they feel secure.
> Today many young people would consider that life to be stifling, boring, or "suffering" but it was fine.
There’s major inflation in middle class expectations. People earning median income are expecting a very upper-middle-class lifestyle. A house bigger than their parents owned with nicer finishes, two new cars, frequent travel, eating out constantly, etc.
My parents were on the upper end of middle class when I grew up and we lived in a home with carpet and laminate countertops. Now everyone wants hardwood floors and quartz and more square footage, too. A lot of folks are driving cars that cost a year of their take home pay. Cost of living is too high but expectations seem to have risen even faster.
> Now everyone wants hardwood floors and quartz and more square footage, too.
What you’re sensing is that things that were luxuries are now not. It’s not a big deal to pay $500 for the quartz countertops when your house is $800k.
What has gone up is the cost of essentials and the base level of goods to participate in society: housing, transportation, medicine, and education.
So yeah a TV you thought was untouchable is 3 days of minimum wage work. But it’s orthogonal to why people feel economically disposssed.
This comment is harsh, but I think important to remember for a lot of people who don’t realize that yeah maybe the hand we’re dealt sucks, but you can find joy regardless. People dance, sang, drank and found life and love through all of history, it won’t stop now.
I suspect it's a cultural thing as well, with most (all?) wealthy cultures veering towards individualism and working. Whereas with previous generations, the grandparents and environment would be more involved in raising children and educating the new parents.
But I also feel like people grew up or had to grow up earlier back when. My parents were married, bought a house and had kids on the way by their mid 20's, when I was that age I had just about finished my education and started my first fulltime job, it'd take another decade to buy a house. Buying a house / getting a mortgage is a major commitment, and I think you'd get a big boost of adulthood / personal development if you do that in your mid 20's.
Early twenties family formation bring the norm was more of a postwar thing. The guys that came back from the war really did have to grow up fast (seeing your best friends getting blown up at 18 will do that), and they essentially had zero desire to have racous twenties filled with dating around and traveling and soul searching. They'd had enough chaos already, and were all extremely eager to settle down into a peaceful family life immediately upon their return home. The age of family formation has slowly crept back upward since then, and historically, in normal peaceful times it's usually been late twenties.
I agree. Having children does make ones priorities very cut and dry. I found it a lot easier to "adult" once I had children. My Friends, at the time often asked, "Is having children hard?" I often replied, in the beginning at least, "Children are easy, it's everything else that is hard."
Indeed, it is society's expectations that are hard.
I moved to the middle of nowhere after my kids were born. One day I let my child walk home "alone" from school, for the portion that is on our own property, and of course as soon as you do that a fucking Karen will randomly pop out of nowhere, and start interrogating the child. It is like clockwork. You could be 100 miles from civilization and as soon as you do something someone somewhere disagrees with, a fucking Karen (and even in a minivan, down rugged rural dirt roads, how the fuck did she get there?) will magically be there that exact second with a cell phone at the ready to call CPS. Thankfully I was able to stop her before that happened, as I was actually watching from behind the bushes, which in itself is shameful but saved my ass.
Exactly that. It's not an arbitrary dated threshold that lead to "growing up". It was the event of having kids. I'm still able to look at my current life through the lenses of a 25 year old me and hell, that looks bleak. But I can say with confidence that I'm content. Of course there are little things here and there but mostly everything is fine.
I only wonder if there is going to be a next stage, the magical "midlife crisis", where I'm going to question all my decisions up to that point and I'm curious how I'm going to handle that.
Maybe also because the life spent leading up to the child having was much different earlier - I mean society, jobs, distractions... I'm sure this has an important role as well in setting up expectations and kicking up responsibilities.
People that tell you you need to be ready are lying. The only thing you need to be able to sustain is feeding them, and the rest mostly works itself out. As it has for millennia.
The only reason this would not be the case is if you have specific requirements for the life of your child.
I would encourage you to look at the medical costs of children in the US. My children's braces alone will cost ~$7k-10k over the life of each of them, with insurance, and to do without will cause irreparable oral damage into adulthood. Certainly, this doesn't apply to other developed or developing countries, but to say "you just need to feed them" wildly differs from reality. You're just ignoring suffering at scale by saying "it'll work itself out." It doesn't, and I can provide pages of citations, grounded in data, to support this assertion. Also, having served a short stint as a Guardian ad Litem to advocate for children going through family court, I have anecdotal observations as to failure scenarios of failures to adequately provide for children, both materially and emotionally.
Maybe the "rewarding the young" in the top comment is from the genes of savanna humans when they collected fruit, hunted and didn't care about expensive medical procedures because the latter simply didn't exist?
Perhaps. Genetics doesn't reward rationality, empathy, suffering reduction desire and self awareness, etc, only biological line go up and reproduction fitness. A bug to patch.
> The only reason this would not be the case is if you have specific requirements for the life of your child.
If humans could do without 2000 years ago, if the kids in africa can do without now, then clearly the same is true for your own children. God knows they don’t need $7000 braces, which are unaffordable to 99% of the US population too.
I’d estimate the vast majority of CVEs in third party source are not directly or indirectly exploitable. The CVSS scoring system assumes the worst case scenario the module is deployed in. We still have no good way to automate adjusting the score or even just figuring false positive.
This concerns me because fighting tooling is not a positive thing. It’s very negative and indicates how immature everything is.
reply