- Thankfully there is a Typst port of this package!
- It's not that hard to fix the area problem with sunburst charts, by decreasing the radius for outer rings.
E.g.
- Yes as lostdog says, it’s a new feature that writes plans in plan mode to ~/.claude/plans. And it thinks it needs to continue the same plan that it started.
So you either need to be very explicit about starting a NEW plan if you want to do more than one plan in a session, or close and start a new session between plans.
Hopefully this new feature will get less buggy. Previously the plan was only in context and not written to disk.
- It will get pattern matching when JS does. Not certain yet but in progress.
- Yes that’s the point, you can’t protect against that, so you shouldn’t construct the “lethal trifecta”
- Weirdly, I’ve found that when that happens I can close Claude and then run `claude --continue` and now it has room to compact. Makes no sense.
But I have no idea what state it will be in after compact, so it’s better to ask it to write a complete and thorough report including what source files to read. Lot more work but better than going off the rails.
- > It’s a lot easier than working with actual people because you don’t have to worry about offending or discouraging them
But you have to worry much more about confusing LLMs by introducing contradictory ideas or talking about too many things at once.
They will not call you out and they will not recover.
You don’t need to reboot your coworkers.
- That's fair.
I guess I've had various reasons to count time, and every once in a while check how well I count time, and if I didn't, perhaps I would start to count time faster. Thanks for the reference and clarification.
Seems counter-intuitive to me, because common sense tells us that old people think slower and therefore the world seems fast to them. So why would they be counting faster than actual time?
It also seems to contradict the thesis of the OP, as others pointed out. Years flying by is the opposite of counting time faster than the clock.
Oh well. Time is confusing!
- > A study asked different age groups to mentally count 120 seconds. People under 30 averaged 115 seconds; those over 50 just 87. That's a 24% reduction in perceived time.
This seems bogus to me. I’m 51; I set a timer on my phone for 2 minutes, put it aside and counted to about 128 before it went off.
Why would your ability to count seconds change over time? A second has always felt a little slow to me, probably because my resting pulse is above 60.
(I think it’s also ambiguously described? Maybe they meant the opposite, in which case it took me about 114 seconds to count to 120.)
I feel like I'm missing something.