<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: ak6te</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ak6te</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 21:42:48 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=ak6te" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by ak6te in "Claude is a Contrarian"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>What I don't understand is, isn't this what "thinking" is for? It can be as verbose as it wants while it's thinking as far as I'm concerned, but why can't it keep the verbosity there? Why does it always spill into the actual response no matter what I do?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 17:34:25 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49700757</link><dc:creator>ak6te</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49700757</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49700757</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by ak6te in "Claude is a Contrarian"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I'm pretty sure this is just the LLM "thinking out loud". For some reason even when it has thinking enabled and does a thinking step before generating output, it still has to explain what it's doing to itself in the output, which often leads to it correcting itself in the output. I've pretty much stopped letting LLMs write code directly in large part because I cannot get them to stop injecting comments talking themselves through how the code relates to the chat the prompted it in ways that no human would ever write and will make no sense to anyone re-reading the code months later.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 17:28:03 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49700662</link><dc:creator>ak6te</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49700662</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49700662</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by ak6te in "The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>This is going to vary by age range, right? For anyone over the age of ~35, the percentage has to be way, way higher than the full population, regardless of technical capability.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 18:25:45 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49648204</link><dc:creator>ak6te</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49648204</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49648204</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by ak6te in "The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Is that a good thing? One of the benefits to streaming for me is precisely that I don't want to get stuck being an old guy who just listens to music from when I was a teenager/young adult. 20 new bands per month is certainly excessive, but with the radio long-dead, how do you discover new music without some kind of streaming service?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 18:17:17 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49648090</link><dc:creator>ak6te</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49648090</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49648090</guid></item></channel></rss>