Isn't this just the good old "aka"?

Like in " William H. Bonney aka The Kid"? Doxing in the 19th century by the government it seems.

There is an opportunity cost to everything. Moving money from energy research to food programs may mean not having an energy breakthrough that could potentially cut down food costs (and a lot of other things) dramatically in the long run.

The poem itself seems to mix several things (It is a poem, and can say whatever it wants of course). What parent said doesn't preclude medical care as a right for a concept, though.

Also, a cursory search says around 2 trillion are spent on healthcare (effectively or not is irrelevant in this context) and NASA moon exploration costs $90B. Doesn't feel like these are all mutually exclusive.

Yep. This is the only model that has worked well for me for more than a decade.

Does House of Lords have any real power today?

Sort of. They can and do amend bills, but they can't overrule the Commons on anything the latter regards as important.

"Important" is quite a high bar in this case though if the House of Lords is insistent enough to actually vote something down. The cost in terms of parliamentary time for the government these days of using the Parliament Acts is very high (especially for things which government would normally do via secondary legislation), and it also requires at least a one year delay; by extension the potential political cost to the government of using the Parliament Acts to pass something unpopular or controversial is set at a high enough bar that it's an effective veto.

This feels like quite a sensible safety valve to me.

With a very small number of exceptions, including changing the maximum duration of Parliament from 5 years.

You don't need most of this. Prompts are also normally what you would say to another engineer.

* There is a lot of duplication between A & B. Refactor this.

* Look at ticket X and give me a root cause

* Add support for three new types of credentials - Basic Auth, Bearer Token and OAuth Client Creds

Claude.md has stuff like "Here's how you run the frontend. here's how u run backend. This module support frontend. That module is batch jobs. Always start commit messages with ticket number. Always run compile at the top level. When you make code changes, always add tests" etc etc

I agree with this. There is not a lot of harnesses/wrapping needed for Claude Code.

You don't need a harness beyond Claude Code, but honestly it's foolish to think you shouldn't be building out extra skills to help your workflow. A TDD skill that does red-green-refactoring is using Claude Code exactly as how it's meant to be used. They pioneered skills.

Yep, not saying we don't need skills. Just harnesses.

We have a very uncomplicated setup with claude code. A CLAUDE.md with instructions and notes about the repo and how to run stuff. We also do code reviews with Claude Code, but in a separate session.

It works wonderfully well. Costs about $200USD per developer per month as of now.

Regarding the self-congratulation machine - I simply use a different claude code session to do the reviews. There is no self-congratulation, but overly critical at times. Works well.

Honestly, sometimes the harnesses, specs, some predefined structure for skills etc all feel over-engineering. 99% of the time a bloody prompt will do. Claude Code is capable of planning, spawning sub-agents, writing tests and so on.

Claude.md file with general guidelines about our repo has worked extraordinarily good, without any external wrappers, harnesses or special prompts. Even the MD file has no specific structure, just instructions or notes in English.

The article, however, says 93% wanted daylight savings in the linked public engagement report.