I have a Shelly Pro 3EM three phase current meter device on my home battery connection just to get more accurate data into Home Assistant because the battery provider doesn't provide it. (In hindsight I should've bought a different battery install but that's not something I can change after the fact...)

This has made my planning / research phase so much better.

It's faster because it has already read most relevant files, still has the caveats / discussion from the research phase in its context window, etc.

With the context clear the plan may be good / thorough but I've had one too many times that key choices from the research phase didn't persist because halfway through implementation Opus runs into an issue and says "You know what? I know a simpler solution." and continues down a path I explicitly voted down.

Maybe that's just CLAUDE.md and memory causing the difference of course.

As a matter of preference however I like the way Claude Code works just a lot better, instructing it to work with parallel subagents in work trees etc. just matches the way I think these things should work I guess.

You click the button in the browser, choose what to create 'I want to create a password (or a note, or whatever)' and then get redirected to their web-app and be presented with a pop-up asking what you want to create (I just told you, didn't I?)

I get it, when you move to a new web-app some things can break. But after using stored passwords creating new ones is pretty much the only other thing you do in the app, it seems to be core functionality that's been broken for over a year now, it's kinda madness tbh.

Edit: To be fair they offered a 'solution' when I reported it: "Don't use the web-app, install our desktop app instead."

I generally don't like the way codex approaches coding itself so I just feed its review comments back in to Claude Code and off we go.

Some of the hidden features:

- If you add a task to a routine and end it with a question mark it becomes a conditional where you can add specific tasks or subroutines on the yes or no condition.

- Make it 'weekday?' and it becomes a switch case for the week.

- 'is it 7:30 yet?' becomes a conditional that automatically detects if it's before that time. I use it for e.g. 'before breakfast' (at 7:30) -> go play (with a timer until 7:30)

N.b. 'fun' fact, my daughter wanted an avatar with clothes that you can earn. The idea was pretty easy to implement but getting nano banana (using a great Claude nano banana skill) to generate the correct images took... some practice. I think I spent more time on the images for the avatars than all the other features combined. It took way too long to realize simple stuff like "nano banana won't generate transparency, only a fake white/grey checker pattern"

Also learned the last iPod touch (great device by the way) has a really low screen resolution which can be quite challenging at times.

> All apps i found were either shit, real shit, or didnt solve my personal need.

Wow, what an amazing coincidence. I made something that looks pretty similar from the looks of it just a few weeks ago because I found the same thing. If I knew your app existed I probably wouldn't have made it. I wasn't even thinking of selling it, just made it for my kid because it makes following various daily routines easier.

It's a mostly vibe coded (well, I made tons of visual and technical decisions but didn't look at the code much except some spot checks) PWA that can run offline on an iPod Touch.

It has some quirks and hidden features for day schedules, timers, etc.

There's plenty of yank in there (yours is almost certainly built better) but it works pretty well for most daily routines.

You can check it out here: https://girls-routine-planner.huppie.nl/

And look what happens, it turns out if you switch app-focus and go back to the app (now immediately focused on the text input) your on-screen keyboard becomes pretty much unreadable (white on light grey...)

The feedback is probably going straight to the bin but I couldn't help myself to file a second bug with a screenshot from the first feedback submission with a broken keyboard.

Screenshot of this absolute disaster: https://imgur.com/a/CyXiVy2

Maybe it could be styled a bit differently so the search bar is more prominent and in the center of the screen, but just having a search bar without any distractions is a fantastic feature.

I think you should be able to use the LMM at home to help you better understand the topic (they have endless patience and you can usually you can keep asking until you actually grok the topic) but during the test I think it's fair to expect that basic understanding to be there.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46043012

A calculator can be used to do things you know how to do _faster_ imho but in most jobs it still requires you to at least somewhat understand what is happening under the hood. The same principle applies to using LLMs at work imho. You can use it to do stuff you know how to do faster but if you don't understand the material there's no way you can evaluate the LLMs answer and you will be at fault when there's AI slop in your output.

eta: Maybe it would be possible to design labs with LLM's in such a way that you teach them how to evaluate the LLM's answer? This would require them to have knowledge of the underlying topic. That's probably possible with specialized tools / LLM prompts but is not going to help against them using a generic LLM like ChatGPT or a cheating tool that feeds into a generic model.

Since the testing tool they use does notice and register 'paste'-events they've resorted to simply assigning 0 points to every answer that was pasted.

A few of us have been telling her to move to in-class testing etc. but like you also notice everything in the school organization pushes for teaching productivity so this does require convincing management / school board etc. which is a slow(er) process.

[0] https://cluely.com/

This topic has been an interesting part of the discourse in a group of friends the past few weeks because one of us is a teacher who has to deal with this on an almost daily basis and is struggling to get her students to not cheat and the options available to her are limited (yes, physical monitoring would probably work but requires concessions from the school management etc. it's not something that has an easy or quick fix available.)

[0] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/ai-in-highe...

The answers were mostly on par (though different in style which took some getting used to) but the speed was a big downer for me. I really wanted to give it an honest try but went back to Claude Code within two weeks.

I would recommend listening to their explanation, maybe it'll give more insight.

Disclosure: After listening the podcast and looking up and reading the article I emailed @dang to suggest it goes into the HN second chance pool. I'm glad more people enjoyed it.

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/14/podcasts/hardfork-data-ce...

Do you have a source for this claim of multiple past breaches? The only one I know of is the Okta breach.

For me they're still firmly in the 'one of the best options out there' category because cross-platform usability is incredibly good imho. I will admit it's been quite a while since I migrated from KeyPass so maybe these other options have improved too.

There are moments where spending 10 min on a good prompt saves me 2hrs of typing and it finishes that in the time it takes me to go make myself a cup of coffee (~10 min) Those are the good moments.

Then there are moments where it's more like 30 min savings for 10 min of prompting. Those are still pretty good.

Then there are plenty of moments where spending 10 mins on a prompt saves me about 15mins of work. But I have to wait 5 mins for the result, so it ends up being a wash except it has a downside that I didn't really write it myself so the actual details of the solution aren't fully internalized.

There's also plenty of moments where the result at first glance looks like a good / great result but once I start reviewing and fixing things it still ends up being a wash.

I find it actually quite difficult to determine the result quality because at first glance it always looks pretty decent, and then sometimes once you start reviewing it's indeed the case and other times I'm like "well it needs some tweaking" and subsequently spend an hour tweaking.

Now I think the problem is that the response is akin to gambling / conditioning in a sense. Every prompt has a smallish chance to trigger a great result, and since the average result is still about 25% faster (my gut feeling based on what I've 'written' the last few months working with Claude Code) it's just very tempting to pull that slot machine lever even in tasks that I know I will most likely type faster than I can prompt.

I did find a place where (to me, at least) it almost certainly adds value: I find it difficult to think about code during meetings (I really need my attention in the meetings I do) but I can send a few quick prompts for small stuff during meetings and don't really have to context switch. This alone is a decent productivity booster. Refactorings that would've been a 'maybe, one day' can now just be triggered. Best case I spend 10 minutes reviewing and accept it. Worst case I just throw it away.