> I've heard it argued that this is an antipattern. If the file is large, it will read the whole file. With Read or something similar, it can do a targeted search and read only the relevant portion.
I suspect you're right and that's why they haven't fixed @-search in the desktop app.
I actually don't find myself using it anymore since moving to the desktop app. I went from using various AI extensions in the IDE to Claude Code desktop.
But if that's accurate, why mention it in this post? Maybe because that's the first thing developers will try when moving away from a code editor?
Tagging files in Claude desktop in code mode works fine for me, as does CLI. With that said, in Cowork, it's been broken for some time and driving me crazy.
I've shifted most of my usage to Codex/ChatGPT Work. The UX of appshots, browser annotations (now available in claude), and the computer use being so much less intrusive in OpenAI.
> Opened issue for this and it was automatically closed: […]
Clarification: It wasn’t closed on submission though. It sat open ~17 days, a bot marked it stale, and it closed when nobody responded to the stale label.
The two-phase thing is the part I didn’t know until recently: the stale label is basically asking “is this still relevant?”, and answering it makes the bot back off next time around. nixpkgs does the same. Bumping feels wrong on most trackers, agreed, but at this issue volume I don’t know what else works.
Anyway a comment should reopen it. Your CLI vs desktop screenshots are a better repro than most things in that tracker.
Yes, now the poster of the issue just needs to (tell claude to) write a bot which posts a "bump" comment every 17 days, and the bots will cancel each other out.
In this case there is a two phase staleness check. The bot marks it as stale and it is correct to "bump" it if you think it is still important. The nixpkgs repo works the same way. I think it backs off from adding stale again as it gets bumped.
I'm not saying it's a perfect solution but for projects that deal with large amounts of issues it's workable.
They should just utilize the old joke about hiring: immediately throw away half the tickets, because you don't want to work on an unlucky ticket.
It'd save the run around and have the same ultimate effect. Or, we could properly work on tickets instead of making the gate "has enough time to follow up on this 14 days later"
Just because someone moved on from your broke ass product doesn't mean the bug was fixed. I can't count how many times I'll find an old bug still there years later closed with 5+ duplicate issues all linked back to the same closed github issue that was closed as stale.
It's just bullshit. Having a lower count on your issue tracker doesn't make the actual bugs disappear folks
> In the tussle between regulators and companies, companies are disadvantaged.
When society once again properly separates governmental powers, it will restore balance, and then companies will no longer need to fear "regulators."
In the US, businesses are supposed to be regulated by Congress. That way, if Congress does something foolish, we can vote them out.
But in the last 100 years or so, "administrative law"– that is, binding regulations created by the Executive branch– has become a huge part of law-making [1]. Widespread use of Administrative Law allows Congress to wash its hands of any real decision making.
It isn't supposed to be this way, and I think we will find our way out of it.
Your statement that companies are disadvantaged only rings true because Executive-branch regulators are not held to account. Lower-level staff generally do not rotate from administration to administration, and so they make tons of binding rules without oversight. Fortunately, SCOTUS recently overturned some of this [2].
The fundamental problem is that the separation of powers, which is where America's strength comes from, has been upended. Power has been collected, by parties on all sides, within the Executive branch. It's supposed to be, Congress writes law, Judiciary interprets law, and the Executive enforces law. The Administrative State, however, combines all three powers into one under the Executive. It gives itself executive agencies that can bind citizens, and its own courts (ALJs) to determine their fate. See [1] for a comprehensive review.
Confession: I ran that. Sorry, Apple– that was wrong!
If I recall correctly, I'd grab the latest version from a private Hotline site, then re-host it on my public server backed by a cable modem, whose name you got right. I loved Quake too.
I'm not sure that all was healthy at the time, and I like to imagine I'm over such distractions, but here I am..
Ah man, that's amazing. It's insanely cool to hear from you! Thank you for hosting!! It's such a strong memory for me, hopping on Hotline and finding just how much amazing stuff was on there -- your server is one of very very few I remember the name of! I was so excited to try a pre-release version of Mac OS and even moreso a port of Quake for Mac! I had first played the demo/beta while I was taking a course at the local university, but I didn't have any Windows machine at home so it was SO LONG before I could play Quake. I was so thankful to be able to play, even with the brutal low framerate I had to suffer with on my Performa 5260/120. Yeah, I ran a server as well back then, definitely fun times (and great memories around all that), even if it wasn't something I could keep doing forever.
This decision has more to do with the Court owning its own past mistake, where they deferred to executive agencies. But both the judiciary and the legislative enabled the executive to consolidate lawmaking and interpretive power, thus violating the separation (and balance) of powers. Overruling Chevron is a step in the direction of restoring the balance of power. The balance may never be perfect, but at least we can see when we're far off course and make a correction.
They do now. Before Chevron was reversed, the stuff that appeared to be judicial oversight was being done by the agencies themselves, not by the judiciary.
> Chevron was based on the idea that if statutory text is ambiguous the people in charge of implementing said statute were best positioned to figure out what it meant
Wouldn't it be odd if the police also acted as the judge in your criminal trial? That's the point here, to separate lawmaking and interpretive power from the enforcers. Consolidation of power is dangerous because it doesn't work.
> in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act
This ruling made clear that the Chevron doctrine was not in line with the APA,
"Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires."
I think it's more analogous to the overlap between police and prosecutors. Those who are the object of regulatory enforcement can and do bring their objections to courts. Another difference is that agency rulemaking is not made in a vacuum; there's a pretty elaborate rulemaking process which includes (iirc) notices of proposed rulemaking, mandatory public comment periods spanning months, pre-publication of draft rules to allow the possibility of litigation and so on.
> I think it's more analogous to the overlap between police and prosecutors.
Those both fall under the executive branch. Plus, Chevron deference was about the court's actions, not prosecutors'.
> Another difference is that agency rulemaking is not made in a vacuum; there's a pretty elaborate rulemaking process which includes (iirc) notices of proposed rulemaking, mandatory public comment periods spanning months, pre-publication of draft rules to allow the possibility of litigation and so on.
That gives the illusion of a democratic process, but in reality, agency rulemakers are not accountable to the people, whereas Congress is. Keep in mind that the fisheries regulation in question on this case was passed during the Trump administration– so it's not like electing a conservative to head the executive put a stop to excess regulation, which is generally a position that conservatives advocate.
That gives the illusion of a democratic process, but in reality, agency rulemakers are not accountable to the people
I didn't claim it it to be a democratic process, I said it was not an arbitrary or isolated one. The democratic element is in the selection of an executive every 4 years. the rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act won't be formally changed by this, but I suspect it'll be lengthenedand more heavily litigated, resulting in less regulatory clarity and slower enforcement.
> The democratic element is in the selection of an executive every 4 years.
That did nothing to help the fishery in this case. The burdens placed upon them came from a lower level bureaucrat, a decision that likely never crossed Trump's desk. That's just one regulation among thousands per year for which there is no accountability.
It's more clear if you use the word vest and divest rather than delegation. Congress cannot divest its own legislative powers, nor can it vest them in another branch.
Congress cannot divest its legislative power, nor can it vest interpretive power to executive-branch agencies. The judiciary interprets law— not Congress.
There's no issue with Congress interpreting laws here. The executive branch is (was). Which they have to do because how do you enforce a law that you do not have an interpretation of? If Congress disagrees with the judiciary's interpretation they can just pass a law that makes their interpretation the literal law.
I'd argue their success comes from making people think they're in an open discussion forum, or at least know when they're moderated, when in fact users get moderated left and right without their knowledge.
And rather than addressing that problem, with this IPO they've heaped on another one.
I suspect you're right and that's why they haven't fixed @-search in the desktop app.
I actually don't find myself using it anymore since moving to the desktop app. I went from using various AI extensions in the IDE to Claude Code desktop.
But if that's accurate, why mention it in this post? Maybe because that's the first thing developers will try when moving away from a code editor?