I tried asking Grok and a bunch of waffle came out but one interesting idea was "modular tiles" with solar cells on one side and a panel to radiate heat on the other with the processor bolted to the panel. (https://www.geekwire.com/2026/sophia-space-caltech-ai-patent...)
Watches are fashion, for most people, rather than a necessity.
That said there are definitely days when I wander out of the house with a watch and no phone. Fewer these days as I use an app on my phone to pay for bus/tram/train fares, but its still nice to be able to do things without the need for a phone.
new foldables are surprisingly strong along the spine. Not impossible to snap or damage but would support being accidentally sat on without it being catastrophic, for example.
It's not that we can't understand what it's saying (for the most part) it's just when something is very jargon-dense, our brains have to pause or take an additional step to deobfuscate the actual meaning of the word or phrase. It's mentally draining.
I guess my point is that when people are regularly reading dense and challenging material, they can absorb information quickly. It's a literacy gap. Nothing about Claude's output should slow anyone down who did the readings in their upper and higher education coursework, particularly if they continue to read to keep their mind sharp. Based on the examples of "inscrutable" text I've seen, I would be shocked if the average Claude user complaining about this reads a single novel (that's not sci-fi/fantasy written for teenagers) a year.
If you really must have a counterexample, though I am afraid it will not reach you given your apparent stance about the other people, when I read Shakespeare I am constantly thinking of poetic ways to translate sentences and paragraphs into my native language (which, for the record, I consider to be great fun), yet Claude has been delivering the gibberish with increasing velocity, yes, even to me.
That said, I must confess that I have not been complaining per se—I assumed that Claude was getting better and better at mimicking the idiosyncrasies of Silicon Valley bro-speak. Judging from other comments, this may not seem to be the case after all.
It's a specific dialect of its own that comes from RL. Nobody on Earth talks about load-bearing honest caveat seams.
(Another strange thing about Opus 5 is that it will constantly re-mention things it thinks are important, probably a strategy to avoid losing them in the context history.)
Every single time Claude has confused me and I've asked what it's talking about, it's because it's got something completely wrong and has managed to obfuscate the wrongness behind never-introduced terminology, poor analogies and (what I can only assume is) exposure to wording it's used in its chain of thought reasoning.
A single question is enough for it to retract the error and correct itself. Suggesting that not understanding some of these messages is a lack of human comprehension rather than the agent being flat out wrong is...a bold take.
Typically a feature of good human technical communication is the ability to concisely explain key ideas so one can quickly identify any divergences between understanding. Opus 5 is dreadful at this.
The single saving grace is the intuition that if I don't understand it's probably wrong.
It's very disheartening as someone who enjoys recreational fishing that the river closures -- typically legally closed to fishing, but otherwise ethically closed -- are getting earlier and earlier. That is, if the rivers aren't straight up bone dry peak summer.
I'm pretty young, too, so I have this, if not worse than this, to look forward to for the majority of my life.
Not to mention here in BC we're up to three summers in a row where entire towns have burned down ... not a positive sign of things to come.
It's really unfortunate that the same traits that make you great at building a business (within capitalism) also often make you have psychopathic tendencies.
Easy to say this when the original commenter incorrectly described Tobias' comments. He suggested that those who pay more in taxes should have a greater say in how the government is spending the money. This is not a crazy idea on its face; you could say that taken to the limit it would not be a good system to live in (the highest taxpayer dictating what gov't does).
But it does make sense that those who are footing the bill for everything might be consulted a little on the plans to spend.
reading "those who pay more in taxes should have a greater say in how the government is spending the money" and NOT taking that to mean what the OP is suggesting it to mean is naive. Everyone knows what Tobias meant when he said that.
reply