> but not the beginning

You didn't stop reading after "The hack itself is on its way out, but the design behind it still matters for your code"? I did.

I meant the beginning didn't show a lot! I don't have exactly zero tolerance because sometimes there's enough signal in the slop, my point was mainly that the signal seems to sharply drop off after a certain point in this article. (I've complimented authors before for managing to keep an article relatively information-dense despite having a lot of clear LLM tells. That shows care, and so I don't object to it.)

I have a suspicion that in these cases, either people are purposefully copyediting only the very beginning, or the very beginning has most of the prompt and the rest is pure extension.