Thread

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

1. Clickin · 1789993562 · focus · HN ↗

   [dead]

2. adzm · 1790000787 · focus · HN ↗

   > Metadata is open-world positive evidence; missing facts do not prove SQL invalid. Numeric exactness, JSON/temporal profiles, and nested containers remain separate evidence boundaries.

   right

   1. aleksiy123 · 1790002244 · focus · HN ↗

      As a sidenote from the slop language, which is aweful.

      Feel like latest models have really got hung up on “facts” and “evidence” in a really unnatural way.

      1. Clickin · 1790034803 · focus · HN ↗

         Fair point. I didn’t edit AI generated docs carefully enough. That release-authorization paragraph has no business being in a README. I'll re-write README from scratch using my own words. Because my first language is korean not english, please consider the editing will take time.
3. nnnnico · 1790002276 · focus · HN ↗

   api looks nice but LMAO at the readme, you should tell Claude to tone it down with the `deliberate lean-forward heavy dialect` claudisms

   1. Clickin · 1790034968 · focus · HN ↗

      Thanks! And yes,I should have edited the README properly before sharing it. Maybe I got distracted and missed real important one.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.