I totally hoped for and expected Anthropic to be on the lookout for strong signs of frustration and dissatisfaction, as this is how they can improve the tool. Used words of frustration myself, hoping that it gets channeled as feedback.

What I didn't expect is that it'd be filtered on the client side, and with regex, where it'd be sensible to rely on the server side, with proper sentiment analysis, if not for other reason, to cover all human languages as well as clear but polite frustration. They may be doing these too, and the English/regex/client side may have been for augmentation or even, temporary solution that they haven't yet removed.

Why, just because we have 10 fingers? No, it's 0, 1. Or perhaps 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
The conspiracy theorists of mathematicians are fascinated by the digits of pi. But invariably, in an arbitrary number base: 10.

No, because any such pattern would be an artifact of whatever base the digits are in.

Is it base 2? Or base 10? How is it useful if I need a digit in another base? Why would someone be interested in a specific digit of pi in a specific base?

Is Digital Signal Processing dead?

How? Was he 10 weeks old already when he was born? Or did he reach 7lbs from conception and was born prematurely after 10 weeks of pregnancy? Or was he not going to be the first such baby, and then 10 weeks after he was born, he became the first somehow?

The posted speed limit is not a minimum, it's a maximum. And the driver is expected to choose a speed at or below it such that the car can stop or avert in time. Which was not the case here.

No, it was obviously driving at a faster speed than what would've been necessary to fully stop the vehicle in time.
Meaning, the "driver" was not in control, considering its speed and the environment. It was reckless.

The amount of marketing crap on that web page is beyond belief. Easily one of the top 3 worst web pages I encountered in the past 12 months.

You can multiply gravity by 2000? Multiply with 0.9 and win some Nobels.

Incorrectly writing down the author's name TWICE (where I gave up reading) removes any interest in what you have to say.

The classified reason may be that Trump suffers from a medical condition that impairs his judgment.

The article says: "Historically, new college graduates were more likely to have a job than the average worker.".

It's a broad brush statement with no geographical or industry scope, and I don't think it's universally true.

In many countries or professions, unemployment rates of recent graduates is way higher than that of experienced folks.

I'm for trend reading as much as the next person, but vague, "not even wrong" premises don't help their credibility.

... and what the heck it is about still remains a mystery.

Well, they did stop all the thieves there.