suggestions may not always be accurate or appropriate
// Can be any thing here that writes into the view
┌───────────────────────┐，推荐阅读搜狗输入法2026获取更多信息
三线及以下城市异地打车订单相比平日上涨 95%，百公里以上远距离订单上涨 43%。一线城市春节打车需求同样走高，异地订单日均同比上涨 20%。
。搜狗输入法2026是该领域的重要参考
12:46, 27 февраля 2026Мир，更多细节参见谷歌浏览器【最新下载地址】
During development I encountered a caveat: Opus 4.5 can’t test or view a terminal output, especially one with unusual functional requirements. But despite being blind, it knew enough about the ratatui terminal framework to implement whatever UI changes I asked. There were a large number of UI bugs that likely were caused by Opus’s inability to create test cases, namely failures to account for scroll offsets resulting in incorrect click locations. As someone who spent 5 years as a black box Software QA Engineer who was unable to review the underlying code, this situation was my specialty. I put my QA skills to work by messing around with miditui, told Opus any errors with occasionally a screenshot, and it was able to fix them easily. I do not believe that these bugs are inherently due to LLM agents being better or worse than humans as humans are most definitely capable of making the same mistakes. Even though I myself am adept at finding the bugs and offering solutions, I don’t believe that I would inherently avoid causing similar bugs were I to code such an interactive app without AI assistance: QA brain is different from software engineering brain.