Based on the recent leaks, their system prompt explicitly nudges the model not to do anything outside of what was asked. That could very well explain why it’s not fixing preexisting broken tests.

“Don't add features, refactor code, or make "improvements" beyond what was asked.”

https://www.dbreunig.com/2026/04/04/how-claude-code-builds-a...

And it's very valid. Because otherwise you would ask Claude to trim a tree and it would go raze the whole forest and plant new seeds. This was the primary pain point last year, especially with Sonnet.

Whatever prompting OpenAI has with Codex / GPT 5.4 seems superior here then.

It's very surgical and careful around incremental refactoring, etc. but it also doesn't avoid responsibility.

I want to play a game. In your hands is a chainsaw about to be destructed. Another exception is already in flight. Live, or std::terminate. Make your choice. -Jigsaw

So... a vibe slop index to keep track of all the vibe slop apps?

The cherry on top: it’s completely broken! Enable the Context Awareness filter, the list shrinks. Now enable the Auto-pasting filter, the list grows back.

I wouldn't call it completely broken; Pressing buttons still does something, it looks like an OR filter instead of an AND. It should be updated to be an AND filter as that's more intuitive.

If you squint, it looks kinda maybe superficially useful? But if you actually critically look at it, it makes no sense.

The categories are clearly LLM generated from the GhostPepper codebase, with vague low level descriptions and links to code. Most categories apply to every listed project.

The UI is the same tiny bit of LLM generated information displayed five different confusing ways. Like seriously, click on a project and you first see a bunch of haphazard feature cards, then a bunch of “feature ... active” rows. Looks fancy, but actually just noise. Textbook slop.

Better would be a simple awesome-style markdown page, with a feature matrix having categories and descriptions curated by a human that actually understands and cares about the domain.

Sorry if this is harsh, but passing off LLM output as “curation” is particularly insulting to me.

Welcome to modern software

hahah. It's slop all the way down.

> which produces primes.cpp, containing your program translated to idiomatic, readable C++ code:

As a C++ enjoyer I can confirm this is some excellent idiomatic, readable C++ code.

Most of it yes, but what about:

    typedef I<((I<((n::val (p::val))>::val) != (I<0>::val))> res;
    };

There is some top class wizardry going on there! I don’t think I’ve ever used conditions in a type definition in C++ :)

Update:

Ah, alright - so that evaluation logic is part of the template, not the code that eventually compiles.

It’s basically offloading some of the higher level language compiler logic to the templating engine. Honestly might be a better time investment than spending more time writing this in the parser.

Now I’m sort of intrigued and inspired to use C++ as a lowering target for elevate (a compiler framework I’ve been working on).

Do you really disagree that it’s advancing science? Surely actually testing hardware, building knowledge on how to run this type of mission, learning to use lunar resources, figuring out how to keep people alive, etc. will teach us things we couldn’t learn any other way.

Fwiw do share your concerns about the methods (sending humans on this specific mission is questionable, SLS is questionable compared to SpaceX approach).

Do you think we will learn more from Artemis or the Asteroid Redirect Mission? Because that's a concrete example of how funding this mission caused other experiments to be cancelled.

Fair point, but that’s an argument about prioritization within NASA’s budget (and its size relative to other spending), not the scientific value of the mission.

There's never non-zero value to any challenging engineering problem. The question is whether the finite resources spent to solve it are best spent on it versus other projects.

And in this mission in particular, you can't divorce science from politics. NASA's budget was reined in by Trump 45 and his admin picked Artemis because a manned mission to the moon invokes a particular feeling and memory, not because it benefits science. The moon is a known quantity, and going there is not more valuable than the other projects the government could have spent $100 billion on.

Keep in mind, this is one of the most expensive single launches in history while there is a partial government shutdown and the rest of the federal government that does real research has been gutted by this same administration. So it's tough to talk about "scientific value" when it's obvious that this mission is doing little science at the same time the government has decreed it won't be in the business of paying for science.

The moon isn’t a known quantity, we sent a handful of people there for a combined few days half a century ago. There’s immense scientific and engineering value in keeping a generation of engineers fluent in deep space operations.

If you’re angry about this dumpster fire of an administration wasting money and gutting research (I am too), the answer is to fight for better funding across the board, not to tear down one of the few ambitious programs left that’s actually pushing the boundaries on what we can do. NASA’s budget amounts to a rounding error and isn’t zero sum with the rest of federal science funding, these are separate appropriations.

I'm going to tear down spending $2.5 billion to test the toilets on a space ship every chance I get. It is a massive waste of resources and depletion of human capital that would be better spent on other projects that could advance science and human understanding.

It's not science, it's engineering. I don't think it's advancing science in a way that wouldn't be possible with a fraction of the cost without sending humans there.

The distinction is kind of meaningless, advancing our engineering capabilities in space is advancing the science.

And as I said, agreed on the concerns about cost and sending humans.

> The distinction is kind of meaningless

Only if it helps you to call this "science", I would say.

> advancing our engineering capabilities in space is advancing the science

In this case, we are advancing our engineering capabilities to make humans survive in space, which is arguably completely useless.

Not only that, but we keep focusing on the easier and fun part for engineers. A real problem for surviving in space is life support, see e.g. this: https://mceglowski.substack.com/p/a-primer-on-long-duration-....

But it is a lot less fun than sending humans around the moon in a ship that doesn't need them at all, isn't it?

> The habit takes seconds. No database. No server. No app.

> It wasn't the specialized components. It wasn't the sensors I had so many of.

> These aren't the exciting parts. They're the infrastructure that every project shares.

Apparently there’s no economic pressure toward brevity in LLM generated slop comments either.

And no, they’re not flat subscriptions. Use more tokens and your quota is gone faster.

Not true with github copilot. Cost is per prompt no matter how many tokens the prompt uses. Which can vary by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude...

Speak for yourself, I used my freedom to disable it.

A signed executable isn't for trusting the app. It's for knowing the provenance of the app. Sure, there are some application checks that happen before listing a store app, but those checks are minimal.

Signing proves someone pays Apple $100/yr. The "provenance" you're getting is literally just the billing info.

You forgot closed source. It’s a closed source dropdown menu.

If I had a nickle for every time a Mac user paid for the privilege of using a proprietary toolbar app...