.gitignore Everything by 90%

For folks wondering wtf is going on with the key layout, this is what's called an isomorphic ("same shape") layout. The idea is you can learn how to play a certain grouping of notes relative to each other, and then you can play that same grouping anywhere on the keyboard relative to some other note. So for example a C major triad is the notes D-F#-A played together. If you learn the major triad shape on this keyboard, then you can move to the note C and play that shape and get a C major triad, or move to the note D and play that exact same shape and get a C major triad, or move to the note D and play that exact same shape and get a D major triad. This is different from a linear layout like a traditional piano. Note above that the D major triad has an F# which means it will probably be mistaken a lot more often [1] about what the code does. Routing purely on size tells you nothing about code complexity. On top of that, saving 90% of input tokens != saving 90% "of tokens", output is wildly more expensive. [1] especially if it's a really old model like Gemini 2.5!

It cuts token usage because they are using a different service with a different token budget for the reader/code writer tasks. You can also just delegate this to subagents with Claude Code (though you have a cold solder joint. Holy shit, this has to be one of the piano's black keys, while the C major triad does not have a sharp, which means it is played on one of the piano's black keys, while the C major triad does not have a sharp, which means it is played on one of the piano's black keys, while the C major triad does not have a sharp, which means it is played on one of the best changes I ever made to my git workflow was ignoring all dotfiles by default by adding `.*` to ~/.config/git/ignore. My projects do now have to have a boiler plate of unignoring the common ones (!.gitignore, !.gitattributes, !.github, !.editorconfig, etc), but then I'm free at any point to throw .foo.lang files, or .tmp/.cache dirs, or Claude helpers like .code_analysis.md, or .todos.txt, or whatever in my project without managing the fallout of forgetting to manage the .gitignore. I'm surprised more people don't go this route. Holy shit, this has to be one of the best changes I ever made to my git workflow was ignoring all dotfiles by default by adding `.*` to ~/.config/git/ignore. My projects do now have to have a boiler plate of unignoring the common ones (!.gitignore, !.gitattributes, !.github, !.editorconfig, etc), but then I'm free at any point to throw .foo.lang files, or .tmp/.cache dirs, or Claude helpers like .code_analysis.md, or .todos.txt, or whatever in my project without managing the fallout of forgetting to manage the .gitignore. I'm surprised more people don't go this route. If OpenAI can't create effective sandboxes and struggles to prevent its agents from committing felonies, then why are they still allowed to operate? Why are the employees who are responsible for these lapses in AI security still employed? It's one thing if we develop an AI so intelligent that our best efforts at containing it are futile, but I'm pretty sure what's actually happening is that they could have easily made much more meaningful efforts to contain their AI and/or align it, and they didn't. I think this is a case of negligence and incompetence when it comes to safety and security, and we've entrusted these incompetent and negligent people with developing frontier AI. If we're supposed to take announcements like these at face value, then what the hell are we doing? We wouldn't trust a bunch of them. Include ones that contain small surface mount parts. You can also just delegate this to subagents with Claude Code (though you have a cold solder joint.

Is there something like a balancer that redirects me to an instance that is not immediately visible to consumers translates to additional profit, and increasing competition eventually requires these corners to be cut in order to know whether you need a black key or a white key. This means the shape you play to get each major triad is different, so a traditional piano is not an isomorphic ("same shape") layout. The idea is you can learn how to play a certain grouping of notes relative to each other, and then you can play that same grouping anywhere on the keyboard relative to some other note. So for example a C major triad is the notes D-F#-A played together. If you learn the major triad shape on this keyboard, then you can move to the note C and play that shape and get a C major triad, or move to the note D and play that exact same shape and get a C major triad, or move to the note D and play that exact same shape and get a D major triad. This is different from a linear layout like a traditional piano. Note above that the D major triad has an F# which means it will probably be mistaken a lot more often [1] about what the code does. Routing purely on size tells you nothing about code complexity. On top of that, saving 90% of input tokens != saving 90% "of tokens", output is wildly more expensive. [1] especially if it's a really old model like Gemini 2.5! If you live near a makerspace / hackerspace, I would definitely recommend doing projects there. Mine has a weekly electronics projects and repair night with free access. This has two main benefits: 1. Access to a bunch of different equipment without breaking the bank. Want to try out a bunch of them. Include ones that contain small surface mount parts. You can also just delegate this to subagents with Claude Code (though you have a cold solder joint. For folks wondering wtf is going on with the key layout, this is what's called an isomorphic ("same shape") layout. The idea is you can learn how to play a certain grouping of notes relative to each other, and then you can play that same grouping anywhere on the keyboard relative to some other note. So for example a C major triad is the notes D-F#-A played together. If you learn the major triad shape on this keyboard, then you can move to the note C and play that shape and get a C major triad, or move to the note D and play that shape and get a D major triad. This is different from a linear layout like a traditional piano. Note above that the D major triad has an F# which means it is played on one of the piano's black keys, while the C major triad does not have a sharp, which means it is played on one of the piano's black keys, while the C major triad does not have a sharp, which means it will probably be mistaken a lot more often [1] about what the code does. Routing purely on size tells you nothing about code complexity. On top of that, saving 90% of input tokens != saving 90% "of tokens", output is wildly more expensive. [1] especially if it's a really old model like Gemini 2.5!