Let's take a moment to appreciate that we live on a populated planetary body. The Peter Thiel has not yet achieved its ultimate goal. Good times.

It seems to be under-reported that the Earth is pretty nice.

https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasa-2026-budget-proposal...

Casey Dreier and the Planetary Society drove the halt to last year's proposed NASA science gutting insanity. Please help them do it again. There are things us normies can do about this 2026 proposed inefficiency.

Same here. I work in Claude Code all day long on slightly complex b2b apps, and the builder MVP for what I want to do with Claude.ai, to work on ideas is far simpler.

I just want to be able to create a React artifact prototype on claude.ai, then share it privately with a stakeholder (internal or external.) I want to allow those users to prompt changes, then see their changes in the artifact.

The bespoke design is not what I am really worried about at this phase. For b2b prototype stuff, claude.ai already does an excellent job with just a bit of project-specific prompting.

Why is this shared artifact building not yet doable? This seems "so simple." Yes, maybe some shared artifact specific git to allow version control is required, but is my ask really that hard, or unique?

I just ran it against an auth-related PR, and it found great edge-case stuff. Very interesting! I get the feeling we will be here a lot more about /ultrareview.

That was my first time ever dealing with such a high-end product and a lifetime warranty.

Just sharing because it was a good experience.

NoLiMa [0] and "context rot" [1] would indicate that with a ~165k request, Opus 200k would suck, and Opus 1M would be better (as a lower percentage of the context window was used)... but they are the same model, right? However, there are practical inference deployment differences that could change the whole paradigm, right? I am so confused.

Anthropic says it's the same model [2]. But, Claude Code's own source treats them as distinct variants with separate routing [3]. Closest test I found [4] asserts they're identical below 200K but it never actually A/B tests, correct?

Inside Claude Code it's probably not testable, right? According to this issue [5], the CLI is non-deterministic for identical inputs, and agent sessions branch on tool-use. Would need a clean API-level test.

The API level test is what I really want to know for the Claude based features in my own apps. Is there a real benchmark for this?

I have reached the limits of my understanding on this problem. If what I am trying to say makes any sense, any help would be greatly appreciated.

If anyone could help me ask the question better, that would also be appreciated.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05167

[1] https://research.trychroma.com/context-rot

[2] https://claude.com/blog/1m-context-ga

[3] https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/35545

[4] https://www.claudecodecamp.com/p/claude-code-1m-context-window

[5] https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/3370

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47772971

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Here is the question for which I cannot find an answer, and cannot yet afford to answer myself:

In Claude Code, I use Opus 4.6 1M, but stay under 250k via careful session management to avoid known NoLiMa [0] / context rot [1] crap. The question I keep wanting answered though: at ~165k tokens used, does Opus 1M actually deliver higher quality than Opus 200k?

NoLiMa would indicate that with a ~165k request, Opus 200k would suck, and Opus 1M would be better (as a lower percentage of the context window was used)... but they are the same model. However, there are practical inference deployment differences that could change the whole paradigm, right? I am so confused.

Anthropic says it's the same model [2]. But, Claude Code's own source treats them as distinct variants with separate routing [3]. Closest test I found [4] asserts they're identical below 200K but it never actually A/B tests, correct?

Inside Claude Code it's probably not testable, right? According to this issue [5], the CLI is non-deterministic for identical inputs, and agent sessions branch on tool-use. Would need a clean API-level test.

The API level test is what I really want to know for the Claude based features in my own apps. Is there a real benchmark for this?

I have reached the limits of my understanding on this problem. If what I am trying to say makes any sense, any help would be greatly appreciated.

If anyone could help me ask the question better, that would also be appreciated.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05167

[1] https://research.trychroma.com/context-rot

[2] https://claude.com/blog/1m-context-ga

[3] https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/35545

[4] https://www.claudecodecamp.com/p/claude-code-1m-context-wind...

[5] https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/3370

Sorry, but I just have to ask. Why is u/minimaxir's comment dead? Is this somehow an error, an attack, or what?

This is a respected user, with a sane question, no?

I vouched, but not enough.

edit: His comment has arisen now. Leaving this up for reference.

Since the failings of not doing proper engineering is far more evident, the reasons for the "insanely overwrought processes and box-checking that exists for no reason and slows everything down to a snail's pace" go back to the earliest written law, AKA the Code of Hammurabi, circa 1754 BC! These rules are part of the core of our functional civilization.

Examples:

- Law 229 (Death of Owner): If a house collapses and kills the owner, the builder is put to death.

- Law 230 (Death of Owner’s Son): If the collapse kills the owner's son, the builder's son is put to death.

- Law 232 (Property Damage): The builder must replace any destroyed property and rebuild the collapsed house at their own expense.

- Law 233 (Structural Defects): If a wall "shifts" or is not built properly before completion, the builder must strengthen or repair it using their own silver/means.

Have you been using Claude Code/whichever tool you use, to read and write from OpenProject directly? I do like self-hosting data like this. I used to self-host Jira back in the day.

One of the key improvements for me when using Jira was that it has well defined patterns for all of these things, and Claude knows all about the various types of Jira tickets, and the patterns to use them.

Also, the spec driven approach is not enough in itself. The specs need sub-items, linked bug reports and fixes. I need comments on all of these tickets as we go with implementation decisions, commit SHAs, etc.

When I come back to some particular feature later, giving Claude the appropriate context in a way it knows how to use is super easy, and is a huge leap ahead in consistency.

I know I sound like some caveman talking about Jira here, but having Claude write and read from it really helped me out a lot.

It turns out that dumb ole Jira is an excellent "project memory" storage system for agentic coding tools.

The thing I have found that makes things work much better is, wait for it... Jira.

Everyone loves to hate on Jira, but it is a mature platform for managing large projects.

First, I use the Jira Rovo MCP (or cli, I don't wanna argue about that) to have Claude Code plan and document my architecture, features, etc. I then manually review and edit all of these items. Then, in a clean session, or many, have it implement, document decisions in comments etc. Everything works so much more reliably for large-ish projects like this.

When I first started doing this in my solo projects it was a major, "well, yeah, duh," moment. You wouldn't ask a human dev to magically have an entire project in their mind, why ask a coding agent to do that? This mental model has really helped me use the tools correctly.

edit: then there is context window management. I use Opus 4.6 1M all the time, but if I get much past 250k usage, that means I have done a poor job in starting new sessions. I never hit the auto-compact state. It is a universal truth that LLMs get dumb the more context you give them.

I think everyone should implement the context status bar config to keep an eye on usage:

https://code.claude.com/docs/en/statusline

My first office job was as an AutoCAD/network admin at a large Civil and Structural engineering firm. I saw how seriously real engineering is taken.

When I brought up your argument to my FAANG employed sibling, he said "well, what would it take to be a real software engineer in your mind!??"

My response was, and always will be: "When there is a path to a software Professional Engineer stamp, with the engineer's name on it, which carries legal liability for gross negligence, then I will call them Software Engineers."

> Welcome to VibeToolX.

> By pressing Confirm you accept all responsibility for user data stewardship as regulated in every country where your users reside.

Would that be scary enough to nudge some risk analysis on the user's part? I am sure that would drop adoption by a lot, so I don't see it happening voluntarily.

Here is an example of HN moderation going the other way, when it favored a right-leaning narrative:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712496

It is getting more and more difficult for me to see moderation here as unbiased. The charitable take is that people are often not aware of their biases. I am sure I suffer from that to some extent, though I really try to go out of my way to be self-aware about this. And yes, of course this comment could be evidence of my own bias.