Agreed 100%. For those of us who have already spent ungodly hours creating hyper-detailed specifications for AI, the take that this is the solution to working with AI coding agents seems ridiculously naive. For context, I've also seen this behavior in Claude Code, and despite initially being extremely bullish on the technology, it's almost convinced me that it just isn't ready for prime time no matter what the hucksters might tell you. When you start seeing this you quickly realize that it doesn't really matter how many guardrails you put in place, or how detailed your specification is, if your coding agent randomly decides to ignore your rules or specifications(even in 'brand new context' scenarios). I've lost track of how many times I've asked Claude why did you do this, when it expressly says to do the opposite in the Claude.md file(including words like 'important' or 'critical'), or a specification document that you read right before implementing with a brand new context. Naturally, Claude's reply will be some variation of 'You're absolutely right to call me out on this. I should have done it the way it was spelled out in the specification.'
I have tripwires in my codebase for when Claude tries to run benchmarks with mock/synthetic data because it had a hard time getting the benchmark to run and decided to yeet it, to avoid potential scientific credibility issues, LOL. You can put the system on rails, but it's an engineering problem, these things are noisy program emitters with some P(correct|context), you can model them as noisy channels and use the same error correcting codes to create channels with arbitrarily low noise.
Agreed. I think originally, it would have been more accurate to say IE was based on Mosaic. If I recall correctly, I think Microsoft bought out Spyglass Mosaic to base IE on, and that browser had been licensed from the NCSA. Netscape on the other hand had originally been Mosaic Communications(anyone remember home.mcom.com?) and changed the name when they did the clean rewrite. I think the name Mozilla came about because they were looking for a 'Mosaic Killer' or something along those lines. Memories are kind of fuzzy so I'm sure someone on here has a better recollection.
Yes. Microsoft licensed a version of Mosaic from Spyglass who got license from NCSA.The name change had nothing to do with the re-write. They never used Mosaic except in the name and were facing a suit from NCSA or the university (I can't remember) so they changed it. You are correct about Mozilla. I worked for Mozilla for 25 years and can attest to that.
Microsoft didn't buy it from Spyglass, they licensed it and agreed to pay royalties per copy. Then they gave it away for free to avoid paying royalties [0] while illegally sabotaging Netscape's business at the same time.
This is a famous misattribution typically used to state generational views have always been the same. Unfortunately its not Socrates, but actually Kenneth Freeman, Cambridge, 1907.
