I know there are other ways to achieve this but to me this, but they all seem "soft" controls - a hard limitation feels more reassuring than simply a line in context that says "don't do this".

In the spirit of the linked post, one could argue I should just write cli wrappers - but I think I like the explicit routing of `Agent -> MCP -> available tools` instead of `Agent -> available tools`. The former lets me control the surface available to the agent. While LLMs are smarter now, at the same time, the applications that use those LLMs have become more assuming of what I want to allow them to do. I don't want to be one hallucination away from a disaster.

This hypothetical system has a bunch of users, belonging to groups. A possibility is that most groups have a only handful of users, but a few famous group might have disproportionate amount of users say 500,000.

If you wanted to put these groups in buckets, you can create linear buckets of fixed size based on number of users like

    bucket 1: 0 to 100 users
    bucket 2: 101 to 200 users
    bucket 3: 201 to 300 users
    ...
    bucket 600000: 599001 to 600000 users

So the code converts the user distribution to logarithmic scale:

    const bucket = Math.floor(Math.log10(userInGroupCount))

   bucket 1: 0 to 9 users
   bucket 2: 10 to 99 users
   bucket 3: 100 to 999 users
   bucket 4: 1000 to 9999 users
   bucket 5: 10000 to 99999 users
   bucket 6: 100000 to 999999 users

> to elevate in the consciousness of the general public the fact that in mathematics the frontier is open, close at hand, and abounds with important unsolved problems; to emphasize the abiding value of working towards a solution of the deepest, most difficult problems; and to recognize achievements in mathematics of historic magnitude.

Also

> These are not arbitrary puzzles akin to fiendish crosswords. Rather, they are fundamental challenges that mark the frontier of human knowledge and challenge us to develop new structures and methods. They provide foci for the continuing struggle, across generations and cultures, to deepen our human understanding of mathematics and the universe that it describes.

I dunno, the HuggingFace incident was not too long ago. They might not be foolish, but their model could be smarter than them to "cheat", so to speak

In 2026, the default outlook should be suspicion for any big private organisations with profit motive.

Caveats:

• ONE HONEST CAVEAT

• ONE THING WORTH STATING PRECISELY

• ONE THING WORTH FLAGGING

• WORTH NAMING

• WORTH STATING PLAINLY

• I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THIS IMPLICIT

• I'D BE DOING YOU A DISSERVICE

• I DON'T WANT TO BURY THIS

• BETTER NOW THAN LATER

• ONE HONEST TRADEOFF

• I DON'T WANT TO PAPER OVER THIS

• ONE SMALL HOUSEKEEPING ITEM

• THE HONEST PART IS SIMPLER

Pushbacks:

• FAIR PUSHBACK

• FAIR HIT

• THAT'S ON ME

• YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THAT

• YOU'RE RIGHT

• YOUR INSTINCT IS RIGHT

• FAIR, AND MORE SPECIFIC THAN IT SOUNDS

• RIGHT, FOR A REASON WORTH NAMING

• I'M NOT GOING TO DEFEND THAT

• YOU'RE RIGHT TO PUSH BACK

Reframes:

• LET ME BE PRECISE

• THE SHARPER DISTINCTION

• THE PART THAT MATTERS

• THE USEFUL PART IS NARROWER

• LESS X THAN Y

• VISIBLE ISSUE / UNDERLYING ISSUE

• THOSE ARE DIFFERENT CLAIMS

Sure but it sucks more for some than others