As a Dutch person, we were taught German in secondary school and Meer/See were the textbook example of false friends:
het meer - der See - the lake
de zee - das Meer - the sea
I don't remember being taught "die See" but I also dropped my German course after one year (which I now regret). Anyway, I always thought this was an interesting development in our languages.
"die See" refers to the sea in general, not to a specific body of water, unless it is part of a name, like "Nordsee".
The English word "sea" is also sometimes used in this sense, but it's less apparent since "the" carries no gender: "He liked living close to the sea." - doesn't really refer to a specific sea or ocean even though the definite article has been used. (I'm happy to be corrected if this is an ungrammatical sentence since I'm not a native English speaker)
I cannot empirically prove it, but I feel like Opus 5 has become more confidently wrong/inaccurate.
Discussing topics from nuclear physics to daily macOS questions, it gives wrong answers, leaves out important details, counterpoints. Only when specifically asked about the things it got wrong or glossed over it continues and adjusts its reasoning. I feel this is dangerous - before I could explore topics with Claude, now I have to know in advance that something is not correct to get more details.
One of my relatives is one of those micro publishers. Selected works are printed and bound to extremely high standards and materials in a way that their customers are willing to pay 1k-25k+ per book. These editions only have a couple of prints and are mostly made to customer requests.
There is a market for these type of books, albeit a very small one.
Super cool. I was thinking about using a ThinkPad trackpoint instead of a touch pad. But as far as I know there is no water resistant trackpoint device.
Working in IT and AI related fields I made the opposite observation. Taking as HR an example, professionals there wanted to keep the boring reporting tasks and automate the human part, e.g. career guidance, mediation etc.. At the time I could not understand the reason why. In hindsight it was a reward driven decision. Human to human interaction is rarely instantly rewarded. Producing reports on the other hand is measurable and mostly rewarded right away.
This is compounded by many managers not understanding the details of what their direct reports actually do. I've had so many supervisors in my career who just have no concept of what I really do in IT, though it's pretty obvious to me and my coworkers. So when it comes to review time, I'm always having to walk them through what I actually do.
Contrast this to when I am tasked with creating a report that they need. They're amazed. Absolutely amazed that I can write something coherent. I can only assume that with the Peter Principle, they're all surrounded by idiots who write emails and reports like Epstein.
Die See - the ocean
reply