Indeed, the disclaiming of it being human-coded isn't the problem with their commit messages, them using it as a growth hack mechanism is. BTW to say it's attributed to Claude, I don't give that much importance, but I think it's useful to other coders to know what model was used. A simple assisted by AI would mostly handle the plaigiarism problem, because Claude's training data didn't come from Claude.
Interesting. Can you elaborate on why you feel strongly about this? It's easily removable--I don't think your characterization that it "forces" attribution is correct, it just defaults it.
It's deliberately hostile, in the way that Facebook is to its userbase. I guess Claude doesn't have nearly the grip on their users that Facebook does. Facebook can make it hard to communicate with (via WhatsApp) or stay connected with some of your friends or relatives, while Claude can just make you use the second-best model for cheaper (if Fable is the best).
At least judging from the headlines, it seems Google is far behind on AI. Fable/GPT 5.6 and recently Kimi get a lot of attention, solve long-standing math problems and lead in coding. It seems that Google's supposed advantages of very deep pockets, original talent, vast amounts of data and unmatched distribution are really not making that much of a difference. What is going wrong?
Claude Code and others often write code that is more complex than it needs to be. It would be nice to measure the code complexity before and after a change made by the agent, and then to tell it: "You increased code complexity by 7%. Can you find a simpler solution?".
Something that I have started doing is to tell it to spawn a reviewer agent after every code change, and in the Claude/rules folder I specify exactly how I want stuff done.
Mostly I use it to write unit tests (just dislike production code that is not exactly as I want). So there is a testing rule for all files in the test folder that lays out how they should be done. The agent writing the tests may miss some due to context bloat but the reviewer has a fresh context window and only looks at those rules. So it does result in some simpler code.
You dont need to measure the code complexity, you can completely hallucinate those numbers if you feel that code is too complex and then watch how LLM will respond.
That's not the point. The number of white European people arrested and shackled by CBP/ICE is very small. But it's NOT ZERO! So at the margin plenty of potential tourists would prefer to go some other place where that chance is effectively zero.
I switched from macOS to Linux ten years ago and haven't looked back. At the time, I compared Linux vs. macOS to living at home vs. in a hotel [1]. Since then, I feel things have only gotten better for Linux, and more restrictive and arcane on macOS.
