This is implemented the wrong way around. Each program should only have access to its own folders by default, with it being possible to grant additional access. Also, I don't believe Endpoint stuff is included in the normal Windows license.
Maybe it isn't built-in, but most Windows user I've worked with, including myself, have been using Sandboxie for probably two decades at this point, probably hard to find any Windows software that is more ubiquitous than Sandboxie in developer circles.
Sandboxie is essentially a giant pile of fragile hacks on top of a Windows API that does not want to be used this way. Does it seem like it works most of the time? Sure. Has it had bypasses? Also yes. I've used it in the past but I don't truly trust it.
There need to be better instructions that you have to open the web page on your computer first, opening the link on the phone directly appears useless as it just displays a qr code on the phone.
For me it's gotten to the point where I have a wrapper script that applies like 5 environment variables and even patches the system prompt strings prior to every Claude Code invocation.
After the Claude Code source code leak someone discovered that some variables are read directly from the process environment. Can't even trust that setting them in ~/.claude/settings.json will work!
I've actually started asking Claude itself to dissect every Claude Code update in order figure out if it broke some part of the Rube Goldberg machine I was forced to set up.
I didn't know we could change the base system prompt of Claude Code. Just tried, and indeed it works. This changes everything! Thank you for posting this!
But you can't. Many times I've seen claude write confusing off-track nonsense in the thinking and then do the correct action anyway as if that never happened. It doesn't work the way we want it to.
In most cases, I don’t use the reasoning to proactively stop Claude from going off track. When Claude does go off track, the reasoning helps me understand what went wrong and how to correct it when I roll back and try again.
Many people are not salaried and can roughly convert more working hours into proportionally more money, so the comparison does kinda make sense. Why uselessly stand in line for an hour when you could use that hour to make more deliveries, do research on one of your clients cases, or whatever?
In my personal opinion, because that's dehumanizing to yourself. It's the same as thinking every waking hour of your life has a dollar value in terms of dehumanizing.
In reality, every hour of any life is invaluable since you'll never get that back, no matter how much you're willing to pay for it.
But capitalism forces you to think in terms of your employer and bypass that basic humanity, and think of opportunity costs. There is more to life than just work and being "useless" is part of that life again in my personal opinion.
Not every second of your life has to be productive or have a dollar value attached to it. Yes, you can assign that dollar value to any hour of your life by choosing to forgo that free hour and serve your employer (opportunity cost). But the actual value of that free hour is still $0.
Thinking that you are operating in the UK because a UK user can theoretically send packets to you, is similar to thinking a corner store in Japan is operating in the UK because a brit can theoretically get on a plane and fly there to shop.
I have previous CTO experience in the POS space, you would be right on both counts.
(till this day, I can walk into a shop, look at the POS screen and identify if its one of those visual basic/PHP/windows XP compatibility mode required stuff).
> Meanwhile, Samsung's own recycling numbers tell a different story. Its old phone collection campaign, running since 2015, had collected just 38,000 phones as of May 2019. Samsung had sold 2 billion Galaxy devices by February 2019.
Well... duh? Their program offers far less money for the old phone than selling it used on ebay. Why would anyone use it?
reply