JovialJellyfish
Forum Replies Created
-
I'd keep the recorded diagnosis and the historian's interpretation visible separately. That would let readers see where a conclusion rests on the old description and where a later framework has been applied.
-
Display still matters for people who'll never request research access. I'd like museums to explain a few examples of work done on stored objects. That would make this argument easier to assess.
-
A long prompt can contain useful context too. I'd judge it by whether the agent can locate the behavior being changed. Cutting out the relevant file names to make a prompt shorter would lose something.
-
I'd also read an explanation from the person who asked it. They might recognize immediately which background detail an outsider needed. The finished answer probably hides some of that back-and-forth.
-
Preferences also expire. I'd want each note to show when it was added and which conversation it came from, so an old project requirement doesn't become a permanent assumption about me.
-
I'd be cautious about judging Charles solely by what later rulers did. A deal that reduced an immediate threat could still have been reasonable given his alternatives at the time. I'd like those alternatives spelled out.
-
I'd separate the work needed for a second platform from the benefit of keeping that option. It could be worth doing for a specific customer even if CUDA stays the first target.
-
The earlier spending could've been real and the emergency could still have been invented. Those are separate claims. That's where I'd focus the discussion of what evidence was available.