> You can use AI computer control to do this stuff now, right?
Speaking as someone who had to do a lot of immigration work to move to Japan, I can think of no work I would want to have a close eye on than immigration paperwork. One error is all it takes for a clerical rejection or similar. I had a professional lawyer working on mine and still cross checked every detail, and found errors!
4. Find every publicly accessible local forum with _your_ representatives at every level, and get on the mic. Tell your reps they will lose your vote and the votes of your entire network for complicity in harm against society on behalf of the billionaire class. Follow through on that threat.
Extreme option: Run for election yourself on the platform and get voted into office. The bar is lower than ever in some places.
> toast is for the developer who wants to stay in their terminal without spending hours getting it up to snuff.
I need a terminal that just works. If it doesn't work out of the box with sensible defaults, it is indeed not up to snuff, and therefore thrown away immediately. Don't ask me to use your buggy-vibe coded thing if it's not up to snuff, right?
This is coming from someone who did spend hundreds of hours learning to customize their terminal, their vim environment, and put all of it in source control to rot away.
"The seat license isn't what hurts, it's the tokens."
not X, but Y... so this is very likely Opus 5 text, given timing and how it reads. has all the marks of it, one being very weird wording which makes it so hard to read the text.
- listing modes
- this gate, other gate
- canonical stuff etc.
would've been nice if Claude produces such output now and then. with 4 agents doing my stuff on a daily basis, I feel like vomiting at some point, not mere nausea, but disgust. damn Codex seems to fare better at this imho.
curiously I've tried many times to instruct it to not produce this nonsense, but _deus ex machina_ always finds a way around it. wonder if these "instructions" are actually treated as restrictions, rather than... mere obstacles. like - you can try to plumb a river, it always finds its way around plumbing.
well author could've tried to read it himself, and figuring it reads as slop to ... like rewrite it by hand? how hard is this, I mean - I understand reasoning took place inside a box (like it does so when you query DuckDB or Excel spreadsheets and we're okay with it), but I don't understand why anyone would think it is okay to toss glossed random shit at everyone else, and pretend it is a high-profile high-stakes writing. this whole text is barely comprehensible. not that I didn't try...
- Lobbying and specialist groups can and do hamstringing America's ability to make better, safer food at scale. This isn't about big vs small producers. It's a regulatory resourcing problem.
- The FDA / USDA split is something those groups _love_ to take advantage of to further hamstring America's food supply.
The conclusion I've come to is that this gives profit-driven-corporations or foreign adversaries an excellent way to harm America's food chain through these specialist groups.
Fixing the FDA/USDA split is probably a good idea, but it will take a political earthquake to do so, and I'm absolutely willing to vote for people who pledge to make my food both safer and more delicious.
reply