And indeed the Nahua people had writing.

It's not about where you come from. It's about whether writing is useful or even required for some aspects of civilization to develop.

You make it sound that there are only two sides in this story.

Spain, Argentina, Kenya, Indonesia, Kuwait and countless other countries haven't bombed any civilian infrastructure either and yet they will be affected by the aggressive posture around international maritime traffic.

Are you expecting that Iran will not apply the fee to ships that sell oil Malesia or South Africa?

For the Iranian perspective it doesn't matter.

Their only defense against being bombed was using their geopolitical position to its advantage. Their own civilian infrastructure was bombed by the US-Israel axis, with the support of the Gulf states.

I fully expect Iran to apply fees on every ship going through, and they should.

Spain, Argentina, Kenya, Indonesia and countless other countries are paying for the aggressive and reckless actions of the US-Israel axis.

That's the situation of the country where I live btw. I don't blame Iran for using the weapons at their disposal for survival, I blame the rogue states that attacked Iran and forced their hand. Let's not forget that Iran could have done it at any time in the past decades, and showed restraint in doing so, even with all the sanctions and Israeli aggression.

The spec can be wrong for many reasons:

1. You can write a spec that builds something that is not what you actually wanted

2. You can write spec that is incoherent with itself or with the external world

3. You can write a spec that doesn't have sufficient mechanical sympathy with the tooling you have and so it requires you to all spec out more and more of the surrounding tech than you practically can.

All of those issues can be addressed by iterating on the spec with the help of agents. It's just an engineering practice, one that we have to become better at understanding

All three of these are real. The audit pass in Ossature is meant to catch the first two before generation starts, it reads across all specs and flags underspecified behavior, missing details, and contradictions. You resolve those, update the specs, and re-audit until the plan is clean. It's not perfect but it shifts a lot of the discovery earlier in the process.

The third point is harder. You still need to know your tooling well enough to write a spec that works with it. That part hasn't gone away.

Yes, unless people had some incentives to show an increase in the trucking capacity in order to meet some metrics and get more funding etc. (not saying that's what's happening, but just as a counterpoint to your logic)

I wouldn't mind if they were actually competent in what they do.

yeah it actually works to use claude to reverse engineer itself; I've used that to workaround some problems. E.g. that's how I discovered that I had to put two slashes for absolute paths in sandbox config. The thing is, the claude team is so quick that soon enough they add more and more features and fix more and more bugs that your workarounds become obsolete

> they add more and more features and fix more and more bugs

My experience has been that they add far more bugs in every release than they fix

1. Yes this configuration applies to the sandbox where the commands executed by Claude are run and as such it applies to anything these commands do, including child processes etc

2. The sandbox rules also apply to the program written by the agent IF you ask Claude to run that program. If you run it manually from another she'll or via the "!" directive from within Claude, the sandbox won't be used

The sandbox only limits what processes spawned by Claude can do. Claude itself can read from any directory you tell it to read from (i.e. that's a different permission mechanism)

Not if the sandbox rule forbids reading the private key and the ssh agent socket (as the shown example does)

"All sensors are temperature sensors, some measure other things as well"