Does ChatGPT Web automatically summarize/compact older messages like Codex? I have noticed I can have some massively long conversations, and its not clear if its compacting, truncating, or what its doing.
I found a 2023 OpenAI comment mentioning an “importance-based truncation algorithm,” but that was from 2023.
is there any OpenAI guidance on how their web context works?
I’ve spent the last few months refining the design, performance, and UX.
Would appreciate any honest feedback:
I discovered a way to inject onClick(), without needing the "use client" directive.
it uses a small runtime, (smaller than an SVG icon) and html data attributes.
That way you can use onClick, but still keep the component server rendered
But is this even useful?
I’m talking about the typical member directory/profile link that most local chambers provide.
Normally they charge between $99-$500 annually.
Depending on the chamber the link is dofollow
Is it possible for it to even get good?
Have you guys been using AI to write? Anything you have done that made it much better?
I have an idea stuck in my head.
A competitive stock trading league.
People pay $100 to enter a 90-day season.
Everyone gets a $10k paper trading account, S&P 500 stocks only, and competes on the same public leaderboard.
Top 10 win real money. First place gets $50k. And cool badges and recognition as a winning Retail trader
Trades and P/L data would be public for each account, probably with a 1-day delay, so people can actually see how the winners traded.
As a SaaS/business idea, would this get users, or is there something obvious that kills it?
For the first time in awhile I felt like Claude was ahead of Codex again..
I run a web design agency and I’m trying to understand the best SEO-friendly way to handle site-credit backlinks.
I’ve seen two common approaches:
Example: “Website by [Agency Name]” in the footer of every page, linking back to the agency site.
Example: a small “Site Credits” footer link that points to a page on the client’s site. That page briefly explains how the site was built, includes a short description of the agency, and links back to the agency site.
Do either of these strategies provide any value? Is there another better approach?
Or are backlinks from client built sites just garbage.
I’m thinking about a product that sits between anonymous users and full account creation.
A lot of sites want users to do small actions:
But requiring a sign up and an account or email feels too heavy.
As a user myself, I don’t want to give a random site my email just to vote or comment. I don’t know if they’ll spam me, sell the list, or leak it.
But fully anonymous actions are bad for site owners because they still need to prevent spam, duplicate votes, and abuse.
The idea:
>Let users prove they are real without giving the website their email.
A user would have one private identity. When they visit a participating site, they could click something like:
>“Continue privately”
The site would get a scoped identity like:
{
"site_user_id": "siteusr_abc123",
"verified_person": true,
"trust_level": "normal",
"email_shared": false,
"username":"john_doe"
}
The site could allow comments, votes, reviews, etc. without having the user login
But it would not get the user’s email, so it couldn’t add them to a list or contact them directly.
This would not be “another OAuth provider.” The pitch would be:
>Private participation for the web.
Potential wedge:
>Private comments, votes, and reviews for websites.
Question:
What do you think about this idea?
Would you use this in your SaaS?
Is “users can participate without giving you their email” actually valuable, or is this just a nice-to-have?
I found an old expired domain that is sorta cheap. It has about 3M backlinks, including links from some very very strong sites. It has a DR of 87.
The domain used to host a lot of old subdomain pages, so many of the links point to pages like:
example[dot]domain[dot]com
My thought was to buy it, host it on Cloudflare, rebuild it as an archive of the old site, and redirect the old URLs to relevant archive pages. Then I would link to my main website from a few natural places, like a “maintained by” credit or related research page.
Or possibly redirect?
Is this a strategy, or would Google still treat it as expired domain abuse? The reason I ask is because these backlinks are huge. Many direct Wikipedia links and so much more
I launched What The Google Font on Product Hunt today.
The idea is pretty simple:
You upload a screenshot, logo, mockup, or image with text, crop the text, and it finds the closest free Google Font match.
I built it because I kept running into this while building websites. A client would send a reference image or logo, and I’d want a close Google Font alternative I could actually use in the project.
Most font identifier tools try to find the exact font. That’s useful, but a lot of the results are paid fonts. This tool is focused only on free Google Fonts.
Product Hunt:
https://www.producthunt.com/products/what-the-google-font
Tool:
https://www.serbyte.net/what-the-google-font
I’d appreciate feedback on three things:
A part of me wanted to feel bad for colt. Just like Jamal was saying, but I’ve been watching since season 1, and I know Colt well enough to know that Jamal hit the nail on the head. That is his game, make you feel bad for him, then take advantage of you.
Real piece of work that guy is. (Coltee)
I’ve been using codex for as long as I can remember.
I have always heard Claude code was better, so when I recently hit my limits in codex I thought why not give Claude Code a try.
I found it better on some tasks, like pure vibe coding a design with out any guidance, but in harder tasks like migrating a SQL database it didn’t do what codex could.
Of course in the codex sub everyone is blanket agreeing with me that codex is better, so I thought I would ask here.
In your experience, is Claude better at coding? Is the whole recent “Codex is better than Claude” just huge marketing push from OpenAI?
I hit my weekly limit using codex, so I thought $20 for a Claude sub why not?
I created a detailed build plan just like I do with codex, I set it to work in a worktree.
I did my normal /project-context-bootstrap skill to it could understand the repo and hit go.
It added 600 lines of code, not a problem. Wrote all the migration scripts and schema tables. (I was migrating a db)
Then before finishing the turn it realized whoops I’m in main, not the worktree, so it deleted all the code it just wrote. Then wrote it all again in the worktree.
After about 20 mins it finished. It said it verified everything works.
The result was that nothing worked, none of the migration scripts could run without error.
On top of that it ate up 40% of my usage in that one turn.
I went back and forth with Claude about 10 more turns, it couldn’t figure out the problem.
So I decided to review it myself, and the problem was that basic env variables were not moved over into the worktree. For some reason, it couldn’t figure this out.
I have been doing these migration scripts all week with codex, and it was one shotting them with no problem. To test things out I gave the same build plan to codex, and once again it one shotted it.
Why does everyone using Claude say it’s better? Have they just not used codex?
P.S - Codex devs, please give us a mobile app so I can code from my phone! 🙏🙏🙏
The problem: when researching files, Codex often pulled thousands of lines of unrelated code into context.
That polluted the context window, made the model worse at the actual task, and caused me to hit usage limits much faster.
Codex and other LLM coding agents use shell commands to inspect files. They often try to protect context with line limits, but line limits are not safe.
A simple command like:
head -n 20
can still blow up your context if the output is one giant line.
I hit this with a 5MB+ SQLite file that had no newline.
The fix: byte-cap unknown command output, I added to my AGENTS.md(short version):
## Command Output
Protect context usage. **Any command with unknown or potentially large output must be byte-capped.**
Default pattern:
```bash
COMMAND 2>&1 | head -c 4000
```
Another big saving was not to run tests, type checks, and full validation suites after every single task, I added a rule about when to run validations.
I did a few Evals on this prompt on tasks like discover, web development, and tasks like "understand this repo before we get started", and the context saving is around 50%, sometimes more, sometimes less.
I put the full AGENTS.md context engineering prompt that I use when coding in a repo, including rules for command output, using subagents, reducing complexity, and validation rules.
I also changed my system prompt in codex, using a slightly modified version of GPT5s base prompt but stripped unrelated things like coding video games, and web design instructions(it sucks at web design), you can view that here: AGENTS.md patterns for coding agents
After building a lot of marketing websites and reviewing conversion data, I’ve become less convinced that “beautiful” websites are what actually drive leads.
Visual design matters, but I’ve seen the highest-performing sites usually have a few boring traits:
- Clear headline
- Obvious CTA
- **Familiar page structure**
- Minimal animation
- Clear service/location targeting
- No clever navigation
- Real photos, reviews, and proof close to the CTA
The sites that look impressive in a portfolio often add friction for real users. Visitors usually are not studying the design. They are trying to answer basic questions:
Can this company do what I need?
Do they serve my area?
Can I trust them?
How do I contact them?
My current view: the best local business websites are simple, fast, familiar, and specific. “Simple” does not mean cheap-looking. It means the user never has to think about what to do next.
Here’s an example of a “simple” design for a general contractor and home remodeling company in Bellevue, Washington: https://www.thewalldoctor.com