"However, in this task, the model was intentionally given no way to directly view the drawing." I consider this claim to be a rumor. Judging by the recent leak of the Claude CLI source code, such directives are hardcoded and sent with the system prompts. Furthermore, we don’t know what happens to your original prompts once they enter the API.

What does that cli source code have to do withh this?

He’s explaining that the magic is baked into the harness. It’s the prompts as much as it is the model.

...which is why they were able to withdraw access to that tool, yes. You're just clarifying but the original comment here is deeply confused, IMHO.

For decades, we have become accustomed to similar anti-constitutional moves from the CDU/CSU. Remarkably, while the German government fails to implement such policies, former CDU chancellor candidate Ursula von der Leyen is pushing them through at the EU level. For some reason, she is now at the helm of the EU. According to German law, anti-constitutional actions are normally considered terrorism.

I can explain this: when a citizen opposes a politician, the citizen is a terrorist. It doesn't matter what the actual disagreement is.

Rust’s built-in notion of safety is intentionally focused on memory + data-race properties at compile time. logic, timing, and determinism are left to libraries and design. Ada (with SPARK & Ravenscar) treats contracts, concurrency discipline, and timing analysis as first-class language/profile concerns hence a broader safety envelope.

You may choose to think from safety guarantee hierarchy perspective like (Bottom = foundation... Top = highest assurance)

Layer 6: FORMAL PROOFS (functional correctness, no RT errors) Ada/SPARK: built-in (GNATprove) Rust: external tools (Kani, Prusti, Verus)

Layer 5: TIMING / REAL-TIME ANALYSIS (WCET, priority bounds) Ada: Ravenscar profile + scheduling analysis Rust: frameworks (RTIC, Embassy)

Layer 4: CONCURRENCY DETERMINISM (predictable schedules) Ada: protected objects + task priorities Rust: data-race freedom; determinism via design

Layer 3: LOGICAL CONTRACTS & INVARIANTS (pre/post, ranges) Ada: Pre/Post aspects, type predicates (built-in) Rust: type states, assertions, external DbC tools

Layer 2: TYPE SAFETY (prevent invalid states) Ada: range subtypes, discriminants Rust: newtypes, enums, const generics

Layer 1: MEMORY SAFETY & DATA-RACE FREEDOM Ada: runtime checks; SPARK proves statically Rust: compile-time via ownership + Send/Sync

PDF is less likely to contain executable malicious code than other formats.

Is it? More so than say .csv file ?

I was under the impressions that pdfs are not that safe. I thought they can do stuff like execute a subset of PostScript and Javascript.

Look, when it comes to corporate reporting, PDFs are pretty much the gold standard. Sure, they've got some potential security issues, but any decent company's IT department has them well in hand.

Think about it - you want your reports to look sharp, right? PDFs deliver that professional look every time, no matter who opens them or on what device. Plus, they've got all those nifty features like password protection and digital signatures that the big guys love.

CSV files? They're great for crunching numbers, but let's face it - they look about as exciting as a blank wall. Try sending a CSV report to the board of directors and watch their eyes glaze over.

So, yes, for reporting in a company that's got its security act together, PDFs are your best bet. They're like the well-dressed, security-savvy cousin of other file formats - they look good and keep things safe.

More than plain text? I doubt so.

common people don't talk about plain text. what are you? a hacker?!?

I mean I guess you don't care as long as the file is signed if it is just some regulatory stuff that barely anyone would ever read anyway.