Always nice to meet someone who considers me a kid.

No one can possibly think that a one-time tax like this is a good idea. Even if you want higher taxes on the wealthy surely (a) you want recurring revenue not a one-off (b) you want to actually collect the taxes not just scare the tax base out of state.

But this is the key part:

The way the ballot process in California works is you can propose terrible legislation, pay for signatures, then get what you want in return for withdrawing it (which you can do even after submitting signatures, which is ridiculous).

It's become a very broken system.

Well I am sure they are not wrong in that they have legal cover to refuse the bounty.

I think they probably are wrong in excluding all config related bugs from their bounty program. Chained exploits are becoming increasing attack vectors so "you need elevated privileges" is not the moat it used to be. And GCP takeover is a big cost to bear. "We can prove it was your fault for not reading our docs carefully enough" will probably not be the salve their customers want in case of exploit. Security is hard and protecting customers from footguns is often worth doing.

But if Google doesn't want to know about these kinds of issues that's up to them. Keep it in mind before purchasing their services, however.

"I want to use claude code to run 10 unattended Chrome beta testers [more info about what is being tested and specifics]. Write me one or more md files to execute and give me instructions for enabling Chrome mcp, then give me an sh script to launch 10 separate Chrome instances on macos."

I wrote that exact prompt, more or less, a month or two ago, and then other iterations since then, and it's been working very well.

Using LLMs to create prompts for LLMs to use was a good realization.

This makes me laugh! I see classes at universities and colleges on using AI. Not just in the tech arena either, I'm talking liberal arts--med school, law school, you name.

As best as I can tell, "how to use AI" is more or less "don't be a dumbass."

To be succesful with AI, you need the same skills you need to be successful otherwise. Analyze problems, test solutions, think critically, etc. Unattended vibe coding or turning in of AI slop is the same as people who cribbed essays, copied and pasted from Wikipedia, etc.

IMHO, you still need to be a developer to be able to use AI effectively. If you start with a really solid schema, or an existing framework, AI is great at building on top of that. If you give it specific guidance for what and how you want it to develop code, it can do a good job. It is NOT just "lol write me a network utility lol" -- that is a path to disaster.

I've also had good luck with updating and modernizing older code, migrating to a new frameework, and refactoring.

If i'm using claude code, my steps go something like this.

1. Using plan mode, analyze the code base, create a thorough plan and testing strategy for XYZ (Or I provide SQL schema, or I provide a thorough plan of what I want to do, etc.)
2. Refine Claude plan mlutiple times until I'm happy with it
3. Start with writing a set of unit tests to confirm current behavior
4. Implement the first part of the project (this is not coding the whole thing in one shot)
5. Run unit tests, check for regressions.\
6. Rinse and repeat..

Steps 1 and 2 -- with no code being written -- are probably the most important parts.

I should also add that, imo, this will be a relatively short moment in time. I've seen people who are spinning up dozens of agents at the same time -- backend designer, frontend designer, security consultant, css specialist, etc -- that all work together and iterate amongst themselves.

We've been running a beta test of some new software, and one beta tester out of ~30 people hit an error. We could not reproduce it. Claude took ~5 hours, but using Claude to remote control Chrome, in conjunction with analyzing the state of the backend database, and auditing the codebase, Claude was able to reproduce the error and suggest a fix. In this case, we disagreed with the fix (rather, we went for a bigger logical change as opposed to a bandaid), but we've had really great luck with using Claude Chrome mcp as a beta tester.

Image and video generation will contain product placement.

And text responses too.

"But wait, there's more!"

tl;dr it seems like it's been different things at different times, officially, and that NeXTSTEP has been used for a long time.

From the Wikipedia page, this 0.9 release doc lists "NextStep" as a registered trademark.

https://vtda.org/docs/computing/NeXT/NeXT%200.9-1.0%20Release%20Description.pdf

Some CD images show all caps:

https://auctions.c.yimg.jp/images.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/image/dr000/auc0403/users/dec444a55bdd461a83b1b7c3f2c8e7fa3a731b8b/i-img1000x901-1678086322oe8huf16.jpg

Some show mixed:

https://wagtail.cds.tohoku.ac.jp/coda/topics/nextstep/index.html

1.0 manual goes with "NEXTSTEP":

https://dn710300.ca.archive.org/0/items/NeXTSTEP_User_Guide_1994/NeXTSTEP_User_Guide_1994.pdf

1993 book uses "NeXTSTEP"

https://simson.net/ref/1993/NeXTSTEP3.0.pdf

This marketing flyer uses "NeXTSTEP"

http://www.kevra.org/TheBestOfNext/NeXTProducts/NeXTSoftware/NS-Release3/files/page625_1.pdf

It's clear the original trilogy was lightning in a bottle for many reasons, and it's clear that Marcia Lucas and other skilled editors had an absolutely huge impact. But can you really say the editor is the "more talented" Lucas? Seems to me that for a time, whatever partnership George and Marcia had personally and working together, worked really well.

After the split, neither one of them ever created something as on target as the originals.

Then again, Star Wars is almost unique for the cultural impact it's had. Hard to do a repeat.

Just shows how sometimes connotations and visceral impacts of words change over time.

I learned about that movie from The Wall..

My kids call me a boomer when that happens to me. And yeah, it happens.

Though to be fair, I actually really like the side button -- the one on the lower right that is touch sensitive. I use it for activating and using the camera. I just ALSO sometimes activate it when reading in landscape mode. Oops.

This is tantamount to misinformation. The regime cut the Internet on January 8th. It was *never* turned back on for the general public. Iran started allowing some country-wide intranet only, with heavy censorship and *no* outbound communication (except for regime figures). There has been no way to communicate with people in Iran anytime since except (a) Starlink (illegal, extremely risky, and subject to jamming) (b) outbound telephone calls (monitored).

Because it started January 8th, it is clear the initial purpose is very different than this states. The protests themselves started in late December. The internet blackout corresponds with nothing else but the regime crackdown in which they murdered tens of thousands of Iranian civilians. The obvious main purpose has been to keep Iranians from sharing about the atrocities.

Is the war related? Of course. It has become only more important as Iran has sought to seize a diplomatic high-ground (or at least equivalency) to maintain full narrative control. And it is true there is an intelligence aspect as well, but more than cyber attacks (how is downing your *own* Internet a win there?) the concern is likely that the Iranian people have been happy to share information to help target the regime, as they did during the previous 12 Day War.

It is malpractice to quote "officials" - if those are indeed "Iranian officials" - and then offer their uncontested view, when they are the ones who blacked out the Internet specifically to be able to offer an uncontested view.

But now you're in a position where a work can only be recognized as "quality literature" decades or even centuries after it was created and publicized. I guess that's a plausible definition, but I don't see much value in it.

I would also add that many governments deliberately preserve and publicize certain works not for their inherent literary value, but due to some message that the government wants to promote for many possible reasons.

IMHO, everything you just said boils down to "it's a matter of taste" or "I know it when I see it."

On one level, I don't disagree. Taking two fantasy authors I enjoy, Brandon Sanderson and Patrick Rothfuss, I would say that Patrick Rothfuss is the better literary writer, but at the same time, I enjoy Sanderon's books more and I enjoy Sanderson as an author far more. Both authors are highly literate and knowledgeable, and their works are clearly highly influenced and referential to many other works, tropes, and so forth. I would say Rothfuss's writing is more artful, but I don't know how to quantify that.

"Lasting value" is, just like, your opinion man, and (IMHO) boils down to spectrum of enjoyment.

I have done the same thing (both with actual LLM text and with my own writing). The detectors seem wildly inaccurate on all samples, and wildly inconsistent between different detectors.