> Use when user says "caveman mode", "talk like caveman", "use caveman", "less tokens", "be brief", or invokes /caveman

For the first part of this: couldn’t this just be a UserSubmitPrompt hook with regex against these?

See additionalContext in the json output of a script: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/hooks#structured-json-output

For the second, /caveman will always invoke the skill /caveman: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/skills

This mode of operation results in hacks on top of shaky hacks on top of even flimsier, throw away, absolutely sloppy hacks.

An example - using dict like structs instead of classes. Claude really likes to load all of the data that it can aggressively even if it’s not needed. This further exhibits itself as never wanting to add something directly to a class and instead wanting to add around it.

Burying the lede about ADs coming to everything in this announcement. Seems like the contract most people implicitly signed when choosing Apple just broke.

Isn’t this somewhat misleading? Any system context is going to be added “per turn” because it’s included in the first turn.

Is any context removed on a turn by turn basis (aside from thinking?)

https://ryanschaefer.github.io/Its-one-banana-michael/

Most people wouldn’t give it a second thought unless something like this happened and it’s now plain to see how quickly they can be (poorly) manipulated.

Is this not a case for explicitly specifying all flavors? Other flavor has essentially introduced infinite moving pieces.

Again with DeFi, some were just Ponzi schemes (see SBFs infamous box token comments) but it also gave us Uniswap and Compound. These at least allow you to take directional bets on crypto so you can make money on its downfall.

> and they can't keep up with the rate of new scam technology that comes out of crypto.

There’s really been no innovation in scams recently. Just highly promote a smart contract token you can buy early on then dump it.

> but a lot of them are effectively ICOs under a different name.

They explicitly cannot promise to do anything economically productive with the offering because that fails the Howey test.

Summarizing, but what they generally said is that the actual “disruptive” attempts at technology from crypto (ICOs / DeFi) were selectively but heavily punished. Take XRP for an example of that.

What wasn’t / isn’t punished is meme coins because they fail the Howey test and there’s not really anything that a body which regulates investments can do against something screaming “we are not an investment.”

There’s most likely some middle ground for this. Too diffuse and it makes direct sponsorship difficult meaning the platform has more control over advertisements as they need to be algorithmically placed. Too centralized and you’re back in the land of cable where your advertising is less effective because of the broad cross section of the audience watching.

As far as “squeezing” creators goes… no, more centralized means higher demand which means higher pay and more control in creators hands.

I guess there’s the fact it made it to Phase III before they canned it meaning more people were hopeful than if action were taken to stop progress sooner.

But, how can progress be made if failure is disallowed because of unknowingly giving people false hope?