If you put something like this in your popover class, it will resolve to the button that called it when position-anchor is not set:

top: anchor(bottom);

I'm not sure how widely supported it is but I've been using it in Firefox/Chrome.

The people I have known who were the most grounded, happiest, productive, and fulfilled all understood their lives on some level to be in service of something that has value to more than just themselves. That can be being a mom or dad, furthering the knowledge of humanity, serving your community, it can be anything that you recognize as greater than yourself.

It brings you into contact with other people who share the same goal. It is a stronger fuel than personal ambition, and one that doesn't leave you empty along the way.

It is pretty clear where Apple/MS/Google OSes are headed, and it's a bad place.

> Marks will apply to output from supported Claude models across Claude Platform (API), Claude, Claude Code, Claude Cowork, and Claude Tag, and wherever Claude is offered.

I've never asked an LLM to generate writing I wish to post as my own. I don't understand why we think it is a good idea to fudge all output just so people can't cheat on their homework or generate slop. It won't have any impact on those things because there will always be models that don't do this. All it will do is increase the rate of false negatives.

It is deeply misguided regulation and Anthropic should have just said no on grounds of common sense.

> Trusting the government to be able to do something is not the same them actually doing it, nor is it the same as them doing it well.

You are absolutely right. My point is not that the government has proven its competency in this domain, it is whether we should expect it.

I've learned that medium effort can improve the outcome relative to higher settings. But I suspect the phenomenon is an artifact of a misguided effort to fix inherent LLM limitations. At least some of its reasoning will miss the target, and more bad reasoning is not the remedy.

The only alternative is inserting a third party, one that has full access to all your financial information, an extraordinary level of trust for a private sector that has shown unrelenting loyalty to investors over customers. That shouldn't be necessary for the average filer, assuming a bare minimum of competence, like one might assume for the only country to put a human on the moon and bring them safely home.

You touched on another baked-in limitation of LLMs: their inability to follow Don't Repeat Yourself. To anthropomorphize a little, LLMs love to repeat themselves. I remember in the early days before reasoning algorithms came along, you could ask an LLM a question and it would often explain the same answer two or three times in a slightly different way. You also see this in image generation with multiple people, they will often do essentially the same person several times with minimal variation. Applied to code, in your functions they saw an earlier pattern and they can't help but write it the same way.

This isn't entirely at odds with producing good code, I often force myself to wait for another occurrence of where a helper function is needed before I write it, lest I create a slew of utilities that are easy to forget about. Maybe it just needs an additional pass: "analyze your output and create a set of helper functions where logic is repeated or the abstraction is wanted."

On the other side, LLMs make random mistakes and wrong choices and they have a bias toward writing more code instead of less. You can make up for this to some degree by running another LLM against their output, but with very diminishing returns. Even if they were perfect, there will be an ongoing cost to little or no human awareness and understanding of the codebase.

It may take some time for people to recognize the cost of AI code generation and their value for virtually everything else, but I believe we'll get there.

This does seem to be true in the vibe coding era, which I expect will implode at some point. But LLMs could certainly lead to a future where vulnerabilities are scarce. The best time to vet security factors is designing the model and writing the initial code, and LLMs are extraordinarily useful for this too. Most code with security implications is not written by a security expert.

An LLM can be the most anal and well informed security expert you can find. If you write the code yourself but have one in the loop from the start, the code will be in much better shape.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says.

If the same standard were applied for posts, this one would fail. I recognize that it is a popular perspective that these measures are essentially a war on anonymity, but that is not what they intend to fix, although it is quite possible that anonymity is a casualty of whatever war is at hand.

I believe efforts to resist these measures would be more effective if they engaged with the problem: the modern internet is a harmful experience for young minds, beyond what any society should consider acceptable. I personally don't think shocking content is the worst of it. Algorithms that maximize engagement over enriching experience are a curse for any age group, and developing brains face the worst of it.

Is age-gating the internet the right answer? Will it even help? Are there ulterior motives? Those are open questions that need discussion. Dismissing a genuine problem is choosing not to engage in the discussion.

> And to whoever is fired up: The market is ready for a disruption. The tools are in your hands. Build what HackerOne could have been.

This is a rallying cry that should echo across the entire tech industry. Build what * could have been.