Naw man, it's the first point because in April Claude code didn't really gave anything else that somewhat worked.
I tried to use that effectively, I even started a new greenfield project just to make sure to test it under ideal circumstances - and while it somewhat worked, it was always super lackluster and way more effective to explicitly add the context manually via prepared md you just reference in the prompt.
I'd tell anyone to go for skills first before littering your project with these config files everywhere
Reread the comment chain, because I literally quoted a comment saying that repeatedly voicing your dissatisfaction to your boss can reduce the robust employment protections in some countries in Europe.
Where is "change in law" coming from? How could it possibly mean that in context?
Of course the meaning is "reducing the protections you have". And I'm challenging the notion that complaining or voicing dissatisfaction could do that in any European country.
Therefore I would like examples of countries where it is the case that simply complaining to your boss has any impact on protections you have.
> And I'm challenging the notion that complaining or voicing dissatisfaction could do that in any European country.
'any' ?
See "cooperative problems" [0], the EU-wide "duty of loyalty" for (not relevant directly here for internal complaints, but paints a bright line), and countless posts on socials of EU people getting let go for complaining in the workplace.
If this doesn't challenge your perception, then we're wasting time.
Why did you conveniently skip over the first and primary exclusion for "cooperative problems" and "unfitness", which linked to the Danish Ministry of Employment's site?
> What protections did these people have that did not apply because they complained to their boss?
Is English not your native language? This question makes no sense. If the protection doesn't apply, then they never had it.
As for providing additional context,
1. "duty of loyalty" is something you probably weren't aware of. It sets a bright line, and would surprise people with your over-general view.
2. Dismissing social media posts [0] about claims of dismissal for complaining at the office that would satisfy your request... is bad faith.
You generally expect the size of an organization to scale with the scope of its activities, especially if its activities include "healthcare" and "building roads."
"Scope of activities", maybe, but there's no inherent reason that has to be equal the rate of growth in the population. You'd hope that government becomes more efficient over time.
Private organizations have profit constraints, and they're constantly striving to become more efficient, cut what doesn't work, and so on. Government has no such constraint.
To compare, Walmart employs over 2M workers, and as efficient as they are, they still need to scale with the size of their business scope. Whether it's a linear scale or a log scale, they need more and more people as they do more and more.
The fact that the same order of magnitude number of people can administer an entire country as the number of people that it takes to administer a bunch of stores is actually remarkable.
The government has become more efficient over time and its size as a percentage of the population has reduced as the population has grown.
Government does have a constraint like that - it has to remain solvent. A government as powerful as the United States has many tricks it can use to do that, but at some point even it cannot do anything it wants.
Mandatory: We should build it in space and beam the electricity back to earth using electromagnetic waves. We could collect those using solar cells. And then get rid of the plant and use the sun instead.
Combining LLMs + formal methods/model checkers is a good idea, but it's far from simple because rolling the dice on some subsymbolic stochastic transpiler from your target programming language towards a modeling/proving language is pretty suspect. So suspect in fact that you'd probably want to prove some stuff about that process itself to have any confidence. And this is a whole emerging discipline actually.. see for example https://sail.doc.ic.ac.uk/software/
That's a misconception. Earth is still pretty much in an equilibrium and emits as much as it gets from the sun. Global warming is due to the heat staying a bit longer in the system, not due to emitting less.
If I have a tap flowing into a bucket, then once the bucket is full the amount of water flowing over the top will exactly equal the amount of water flowing in from the tap.
If I increase the size of the bucket, the the amount of water flowing over the top will also exactly equal the amount flowing from the tap.
There's also scale to consider: global warming is more like if my bucket was very soft, and I've stretched the plastic a little bit to give it slightly more volume (the analogy breaks down beyond this point).
Drilling is essentially an O(N^2) method. You need to replace your drill bit every X meters, and the time it takes to replace it about linear in the current depth.
That's just economy of scale, though. It's always more expensive to be the early adaptor. In Switzerland, 15% of all buildings are heated using geothermal heat pumps.
Yes. And in Switzerland, I believe most new houses have some other type of heat pump (drilling for geothermal is not allowed everywhere, or too expensive). This all still needs electricity; but many houses now install photovoltaics. (At least where I live.)
claude.md seems to be important enough to be their very first point in that document.
reply