They are not human, but it helps to prompt them similarly. See: https://www.anthropic.com/research/emotion-concepts-function
any explanation of why the context window is only 272K?
When I say crash tolerance, I mean the entire system going down. Given the emphasis on async BEAM processes, which all work in memory, I find it hard to understand why they're more reliable than the "standard"…
A rewrite of a stateful application written in python with postgres would be more illustrative of how you're solving the same problems but better. Do BEAM applications not use an actual databse? How is crash tolerance…
They are not human, but it helps to prompt them similarly. See: https://www.anthropic.com/research/emotion-concepts-function
any explanation of why the context window is only 272K?
When I say crash tolerance, I mean the entire system going down. Given the emphasis on async BEAM processes, which all work in memory, I find it hard to understand why they're more reliable than the "standard"…
A rewrite of a stateful application written in python with postgres would be more illustrative of how you're solving the same problems but better. Do BEAM applications not use an actual databse? How is crash tolerance…