It's interesting to note here that Anthropic indeed don't use "do not X" in the Opus system prompts. However, "Claude does not X" is very common.

I suspect that lets the model "roleplay" as Claude, promoting reasoning like "would Claude do X?" or "what would Claude do in this situation?"

> it — a crisis not of computer science but of procurement

> a subtype — not in the object-oriented sense of a type that extends another, but in the mathematical sense of a constrained set

A number of em dashes and "not X, but Y" constructs unfortunately, sometimes even right next to each other like the above.

I'm not convinced this work is wholly AI but it has at least the smell of augmentation or assistance, and a sloppy mindset in terms overseeing it. That indicates a lack of investment from the author which I always think is... unfortunate as a reader, to say the least.

I think there's a parallel here in advertising and what AI has done there. It's clearly used nowadays, a seasoned user can probably spot it straight away even if it gets harder over time. Still, it's deemed "good enough". The savings versus having a team and shooting on location etc. can be enormous. Even before this launch, I see it on the web. It's already happening.

I went on a Wikipedia dive and discovered this funny bit regarding the court process surrounding Lavabit and FBI's desire of the TLS private keys.

> The contempt of court was caused by Levison providing the keys printed in a tiny (4 point) font, which was deemed "largely illegible" by an FBI motion, which went on to complain that "To make use of these keys, the FBI would have to manually input all 2560 characters, and one incorrect keystroke in this laborious process would render the FBI collection system incapable of collecting decrypted data."

(And to be clear, that's all they ever saw of said keys)

> The court ordered Levison to be fined $5,000 a day beginning 6 August until he handed over electronic copies of the keys. Two days later Levison handed over the keys hours after he shuttered Lavabit.

I remember that. That was around the time they were using the National Security Letter to make things happen that were clearly illegal. Now look at where we are at. They are using Nation Security reasoning for anything.

That's just stupid. Take 10 people, each enters the data independently, compare their versions and select the most common of each character. With 1 second per character they would finish in an hour, coffee break included. They just didn't want to bother.

Using OCR you could reduce that to seconds.

Irrespective of whether this particular court order to share the keys was OK in the first place, you shouldn't get to respond to a court order with any kind of malicious compliance even if it isn't "too much" extra work for other parties.

From the article I assume D5 was used simply because it was battle tested and proven, and a an additional Z9 was picked because they fancy the camera and they want to know if it can also be used.

Maybe there's more to it? Otherwise I think personal camera preferences other than radiation performance decides.

Edit: Ah missed the bottom part of it where they mention the Z9 was heavily modified for temp and radiation in cooperation with Nikon.

I recommend https://issinfo.net/artemis over the surge of vibe coded Artemis II trackers. Seen two others so far and they've all had major inaccuracies either regarding trajectory, current distance, or current mission state. One even said the remaining mission time was over 400 days. They all obviously used Claude Code.

Just to be clear one glance and I can tell issinfo.net also used claude code

Absolutely ... https://issinfo.net/artemis is the one I use.

Great sense of scale, lovely to see the Moon apparently a long way from the "intercept" point, and it seems "accurate enough".

Thanks - it's very nice to have a progress bar that you can scrub through to see where and when they have been and will be later in the mission.

I did not use claude code, but codex, and I am fetching space weather from NOAA SWPc, trajectory, distance, speed, and comms delay are computed from NASA's published Artemis II mission plan parameters, not pulled live from NASA telemetry. Also, the current discrepancy is likely caused by the orbital phase and reference model being used. tracker shows about 192,000 km, while NASA's AROW shows about 80,000 miles, which is roughly 129,000 km. it is off by around 60,000 km. difference can happen because the spacecraft is in a elliptical orbit and different trackers may be using different assumptions, interpolation methods,... or reference points for the trajectory

I really appreciate the idea and effort you put into building an Artemis 2 tracker dashboard. As an aerospace engineering student, I genuinely appreciate the information, the idea, and the effort that went into building this. The trajectory shape itself is technically a bit off, but honestly that doesn’t really matter here because the vast majority of people using the site aren’t aerospace engineers and aren’t looking for a perfectly modelled trajectory. They are looking for an accessible way to understand all the relevant information.

Also, it’s pretty common to see people immediately label projects as “AI slop.” There are quite a few folks who react that way right away, like @jug did here. That reaction is somewhat expected given how quickly AI has taken off and the existential/job-security concerns many computer engineers are dealing with right now, including the massive layoffs at Google 1-2 years ago.

At the end of the day, using AI to help write code is not that different from hiring a freelancer or contractor to implement parts of a project. The core idea, the decision to build it in the first place, the design choices, the testing, and the overall direction still come from humans. Those parts require thought, effort, and ownership, and that deserves appreciation. Either way, I think projects like this are valuable for sparking curiosity and making technical ideas more approachable to common people, which is always a good thing.

I agree; LMArena died for me with the Llama 4 debacle. And not only the gamed scores, but seeing with shock and horror the answers people found good. It does test something though: the general "vibe" and how human/friendly and knowledgeable it _seems_ to be.

Yup, this brings back my academia years in 1998, sitting with KDE 1.0 and Java 1.1. It was mostly Java, then Perl as this fabulous scripting/glue language, teeny bit of C and MIPS Assembler for the low level courses.

We didn't touch a fairly esoteric language called Python much. Because we saw the future. Java and IPv6 was about to change everything.

I was thinking about creating charts of shame for this across some sites. Is there some browser extension that categorizes the data sources and requests like in a pie chart or table? Tracking, ad media, first party site content...? Would be nice with a piled bar chart with piles colorized by data category.

Maybe you'd need one chart for request counts (to make tracking stand out more) and another for amount of transferred data.