Just tell it to write in ASD-STE100.

What incentive would it have to stay on Earth?

"Ballmer succeeded Gates as Microsoft's CEO and maintained that position from 2000 until his resignation in 2014."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

Choose a non-competitive hobby then.

> For a lot of people, "fixing" means adding code to make it work.

What if the fix requires deleting a single line of code?

Is the additive fix to enshroud it in if (0) { } ?

What I saw in these cases, the result was a few levels removed from the root cause and they'd add the same workaround to like 5 different places (and miss one or two) instead of tracking it back to the origin where the fix was that simple.

Usually something more subtle like adding an early return somewhere before the offending line, or inheriting from that class and blanking that method, or something along those lines.

Just tell it to exclusively write briefly and in ASD-STE100.

Just figure out how many 7-foot-tall persons you'd have to add to your country to increase the average height by 1 inch.

7 feet = 2.1336 meters 1 inch = 2.54 centimeters

Can this help tiny models like Qwen3.5-0.8B?

I'm not GP, but in research very diverse teams are not uncommon. I'm on a team now in which I'm the embedded software engineer / Android SME and my coworker is the 4G LTE/5G NR SME.

I ask him 4G LTE/5G NR questions all the time. I don't know ahead of time if he'll know the answer, but (1) it'd be a solid bet that he does and (2) it's his responsibility to know it given his role.

> I do not see a "typical" user needing to access a path with say...

Typical users run software written by atypical users.

> some sort of OS-wide single-implementation

How do you propose handling migration? What if someone tries to expand an old archive file containing a now-forbidden path?

What I mean is that for “honest” software, built-in to the OS or otherwise, the programmer finds a situation where they take some user-supplied input and concatenate that into a path, and call something like OS.read(). If they want to prevent the user from causing havoc, they now find themselves dealing with path validation in their software instead of calling OS.safeOpen(), which would be a reduced subset of allowed chars?

If the OS is working properly, the havoc should just result in "permission denied."

If there's a path on the system that the user should not be able to read, that's the job of the OS to handle, not the individual applications.

How is it permission denied if the app is running as admin? The OS "handled" it by giving admin app admin access. Sure, it was tricked by the user input, but that's what the fixes are for?