I tend to run the content through something like Luna to deslopify now.

This helps a bit though magit still feels very sluggish.

But... isn't this solving the problem by removing most of what makes it an issue in the first place? I imagine most people use ORMs for the SQL <-> native class data sync capability. And this assumes one would run the Acadia query instead.

FWIW I'm not trying to be negative, it's just my general impression is that these N+1 usually occur because people _want_ direct object access and _want_ to write loops, and _want_ to access fields and have the underlying SQL be sorted by the ORM.

My general feeling here is that this really needs to be fixed at the model level. All other solutions are mere hacks that work for a bit but all have drawbacks. It's either adding yet more context (which has variable rates of success) or piping to a different model to translate, or using a skill, or mentioning this per each prompt, or....

At this point I think it's in Opus's nature to talk like this, and given enough back-and-forth it will start to drift back to its classic mode, aka this incomprehensible "load-bearing seam" babble.

[0] https://github.com/zachahn/vomit/tree/main

[1] https://github.com/gvzdv/claudish-to-english

Is this a hardcoded limit or something relative to the input prompt etc.?

I know the “instruct model to change output style” is supposed to reduce efficiency - but has anyone experimented with prompts like that? At this point I’m happy to take a slight intelligence/ effectiveness loss for less verbose, artisan and elliptic writing.

The split one would be handy though.

I guess what I meant was: the only way for art to meet one of the ZKP criteria is for us to assume it's art.

> Therefore, if the artist did not truly experience the feelings, the piece of work they produce would not be sincere, and hence not art. This also covers malicious attempts to produce a piece of art without having experienced the feelings. As the art is a successful representation of the agreed upon feelings, and the art is a Tolstoyan piece of art, the artist must have truly experienced them.

Isn't that circular? If I "fake" a Jackson Pollock style painting without having any feeling whatsoever AND it manages to evoke feelings in the viewer, who's to say which feelings are the agreed upon ones?

I'm glad to hear it, I thought that was just me. It gets especially hairy when moving commits around...

Plus I have 3-way diffs enabled and I usually get confused by which section is which at least once a day.

Also: does anyone know if `magit` has history support?

Sure. Although I'd say that if you want to study history that's _all_ you can do - use different sources, corroborate, cross-check, link and, generally, try to make the different events and interpretation "fit" together. If you have no documentation for it or supporting evidence then you've got nothing to work with.

Otherwise one could just use a semi-apologetic argument: the Exodus story DID happen as outlined in OT but God hid all signs of it so it couldn't be confirmed.

How often would you say you get to do a non-ILS landing? I often wonder how common these are outside of North America (where I hear visual approaches are apparently way more common than in Europe).

And related to that, how often do you see VOR approaches in the wild?

> In additition, even though I have read the vast majority of the papers featured on the website, I have not read through each of the website's versions end to end.

Website's versions, as in - the actual text or the "explanations"? Either way this is a big red flag.

Or alternatively, what are the "better" alternatives to the classics everyone knows.

[0] https://www.pcgamer.com/how-cats-get-drunk-in-dwarf-fortress...

I believe there's a natural "right" length to most posts, and with experience you learn to gauge if you're over that length or not.