This heuristic is commonly believed — and expressed on this website — but is idiotic. Plenty of people have known how to use em dashes when writing on a computer since the 1980s. (This was true even before UTF-8 was invented to make extended characters work across platforms; instead of ⌘⇧-hyphen, we'd just type "--" to approximate it.)
The reason LLMs tend to use a lot of em dashes is that the human-authored texts they were trained on used a lot of em dashes.
> Plenty of people have known how to use em dashes
Plenty? I don't think it's that many. And knowing how to use them, doesn't mean they would actually use them. In my experience, em dashes are mainly found in academic literature. Chances that an em dash in a new text comes from an LLM are pretty high.
Your use of it is dubious, I think. Commas would serve equally well --or better-- since it's a simple conjunction, not an interjection.
Markdown is ubiquitous in the kinds of places Hacker News visitors also tend to visit, like GitHub, various ticketing and project management systems like Jira, note takers like Obsidian and Notion (or an approximation of Markdown).
I've used `--` for years in place of an em-dash, which markdown renders as an actual em-dash.
This is untrue and a naive understanding of modern model training.
Opus 5 does not speak like a normal, average, or common English user. For example, it says “stated plainly” or “worth stating plainly” (two very uncommon English phrases) every two or three responses.
This (Anthropic's "watermark" stance, I mean) is so fundamentally ludicrous that I have assumed it is a (wholly insincere, but arguably pragmatic, at least from their perspective) attempt to deal with the EU and their latest misguided, ham-fisted attempt to solve a real-world problem by drenching the entire world with more regulatory slop[1].
The "watermark" can be trivially defeated, but may be enough to satisfy the letter of the law, and like many people here, I would argue that if you are letting Claude write for you, you've already accepted getting the literary equivalent of turd soup, so the harm is — or at least could be — fairly minuscule.
(FWIW I have a more favorable view than most people seem to of the EU's efforts to at least try tackle problems like this — but predictably, the bureaucratic "solutions" they come up with don't work, but do make things objectively worse)
It's valid question for people unfamiliar with the project, but it is the AOSP in terms of looks, GrapheneOS does not customize the UI in any way beyond what their own features require as additions. Note that Pixel OS is not AOSP. The default home app of course also influences the experience quite the bit unless you replace it, which is what I'd personally recommend everyone to do as it's so incredibly barebones. Lawnchair is already a big step up as an open source alternative.
It looks very plain (black background, monochrome icons, very few apps included). You can customize all that if you want. I personally quite like the default appearance, but I am also the kind of person who uses the default GNOME or KDE theme on Linux and does not bother with custom themes or anything beyond daily Bing wallpapers.
What? Of course... of course the dog is conscious.
Did you mean dogs don't have values and judgements? I suspect they do, and those might be much more different than dog consciousness vs human. And one judgement might be "human gone; i do wtf i WANT bro" or, you know, something vaguely like that.
2025 xmas day, was at my wife's parents' house in rural Japan, my kids were all playing with their cousins, I was posted up with my laptop just listening to some podcast about the benefits of making time for long walks in middle age (as if! ~lol) while running another "agentic team" experiment — 12 agents in parallel.
I'd been feeding these bots a few projects, over and over — the hard part was the feeding them — that is, giving them enough well-defined work to do. They weren't yet good enough to write real software you could keep — at least I'd never seen that — and my experiments were just about finding the edges, building my intuition, and playing with processes that might be useful someday.
These things had built my kids' weird magical-dominoes games a few times by that point — but the experiment had been repeated so many times that you could argue we had "written" that software in English, with a spec that had been built, reworked, and rebuilt many times.
But this time, the bots were building me a bespoke git client, unlike any other, and unlike anything I would take the time to write — waaaay to complicated, with too little benefit. I wanted it, but only for this one niche use case.
It was a GUI client to manage a collection of repos, about 200 of them in a monorepo where every subproject was a git submodule , which are the universal counterpart to node_modules — while the latter is notorious for being "the heaviest object in the universe", git submodules are widely acknowledged to be the most annoying objects in the universe.
Nevertheless, I had this weird monorepo, and I wanted to visualize and do stuff to this list of independent repos that were also git submodules of the parent monorepo: sort by outstanding commits, divergence from upstream, recency of activity, etc. Visualize them differently based on these things. Search across them, including the source code on branches other than the current one. Show the branch counts and number of branches and commits that existed locally but not pushed upstream. A bunch more boring stuff like that, but done across the full set of repos.
That project itself wasn't even interesting to me; that software would be marginally useful to me if it existed and worked, but the main point it was just a large enough chunk of work to keep a team of bots busy all day without a human in the loop.
In December 2025, AI coding agents were already useful with a human in the loop. Opinions varied a lot about how useful they were, but to me it was obvious we were going to use them for the rest of our careers as software engineers.
It was not yet obvious that we were going to let them write huge swaths of code, or entire programs, without any humans in the loop. I had never seen that produce something that worked well enough to be worth keeping.
And then, that day, I did. I had structured the workflow so that the git client was on the screen and auto-refreshing. I was listening to the podcast, drinking coffee, reading the news. The git client was a crude window with a table in the background, a single column showing the full path to each repo, and nothing else.
Then the table expanded. It got color coded numbers representing the commit/branch counts. It suddenly gained styles, and looked nice. A contextual menu started popping up, repeatedly, and grew to include several more menu items over the next few minutes. New confirmation dialogs popped up as the bots implemented and exercised the various features from my spec.
I remember my field of vision narrowing as I started to focus on what the bots were doing. They were just executing my loop — one bot would implement one bullet from my spec, another bot would review the code while another bot manually tested it, and tried to break it, run a code review gauntlet in a loop until there were no more findings, repeat.
I could see the progress play out on my screen as they worked. I had watched bot teams work before, but it had always been pretty janky, and something like a bad game that nobody would play, or a stupid to-do-list app, or — more often — something that didn't actually work.
This was the first time I had ever seen it work. This was the grail we'd been looking for, not sure if it really existed: a fleet of bots successfully building a piece of complex, useful software without human assistance. I could tell it was working, because the adversarial testing and usability checks were all happening right before my eyes.
So it _is_ possible, I thought to myself.
They did it all morning. The app worked. I used it every day after that, for several weeks, until I finally got that entire monorepo converted to a more sensible git subtree-based arrangement.
In the half year since then I've been in a kind of manic state some of my friends call cyberpsychosis, chasing that dream. I've now seen agentic fleets successfully build many things. I've also seen a bunch of failures, some subtle, some catastrophic and hilarious. I'm still building my intuition, and the laws of physics in this universe are mutating every few weeks. It's wild.
I am fortunate enough to work at a place that doesn't pressure engineers to climb a token leaderboard, or to use AI beyond what we deem prudent. This kind of agentic no-humans-in-the-loop coding is prohibited. The policy is that in this era where we all generate more code than ever, even by hand, it's the quality bar that must go up, not the speed of production.
That's awesome because it keeps me grounded in the old ways, and confines my cyberpsychosis to my weekends and evenings. I usually spend the weekend building up a couple software plans, honing them as best I can, and then unleashing the clankers Sunday night.
I'll let them run all week, sometimes giving them a poke or flipping them over a couple time in the evening, and then the next Saturday morning, I see what I've got. What I'm mainly interested in is: How can agentic fleet-coding processes evolve to produce better software and require less human interaction and inspection? And the corollary: How can software architectures evolve to safely consume more of this fundamentally untrustable code?
It's thrilling. Exhilarating. The near-infinite subsidized tokens are about to finally run out this month, alas. But for the past 6 months it's easily the best $400/month I have ever spent. :)
I like to think I'm part of the reason the bots use em dashes so much, since I've been using them — or the ASCII "--" that we used to have to type to represent them in the pre UTF-8 times — since you could write stuff and post it on the internet.
This fixes a dozens-of-times-per-day annoyance for me.
The grid is good, but even better is the instant virtual display switching.
Nowhere is the death-by-a-thousand-paper-cuts annoyance of modern macOS worse than having to hit Ctrl→→→→→→→ and suffer those repeated animations, over and over.
It's every action on Mac and iOS that does this, and it has been increasing in intrusiveness for a decade. I can't be sure why they do it, but it comes off as though their visual designers are immature, thinking we want to see their impressive animations not just in a demo, not just in a tutorial that we go through once, where we are meant to grasp the relationships between the things, but over and over again, all day long, for decades.
I freaking don't. One time was plenty. I don't want any animation. And the "reduce animation" feature's implementation is a slap in the face: all the delay -- that part is non-negotiable apparently -- but with blurry crossfades instead.
I'm using cwm (x11) without a compositor (never noticed tearing). And it's so nice when everything is not trying to be cute with shadows, animations and round corners. Animation only makes sense when there's a direct action that controls it (like when swapping spaces or hovering) or the system wanting to inform us (notifications). And it's better be fast. Otherwise it's just visual effects that quickly become tiring after a few days.
It is absolutely, positively mind boggling that you have to sit through those animations. And key presses don’t even take effect if your new desktop until the animation is done. It’s just lunacy.
How does a company with infinite resources and talented designers come up with shit like that??
I've also switched to Instant Space Switcher, it is soo good! Previously I used BetterMouse for only this feature but they made the space switching worse in later versions (slower, on-par with the default macOS speed).
You can also do Ctrl-UpArrow then click the space you want. This isn't instant, but it might be a little better than repeatedly cycling through each desktop, especially if you have a lot of them. Turning off "Automatically rearrange Spaces based on most recent use" is also a must IMO.
Personally, I only open one app per desktop and just use Command-Tab. If you hold Command after Command-Tab, you can select an app with having to cycle through all of them.
