And now Perplexity has mailed all of those "free" users to add a "card" (wont charge now) to continue with its free pro offer. Apart from airtel perplexity ran a lot of college based programs where students were basically referring each other for money.
They also have 12 months free when subscribing through Paypal. There's almost zero chance I remain a customer after those 12 months are over, since I find ChatGPT way more valuable.
Thanks for clarifying. It looks like I needed to refresh my memory of the browser APIs.
Reading further, this API only works remotely for CSS via chrome.scripting.insertCSS. For JS, however, the chrome.scripting.executeScript JS needs to be packaged locally with the extension, as you said.
It seems the advanced method is to use chrome.userScripts, which allows for arbitrary script injection, but requires the user be in Dev Mode and have an extra flag enabled for permission. This API enables extensions like TamperMonkey.
Since the Claude extension doesn't seem to require this extra permission flag, I'm curious what method they're using in this case. Browser extensions are de facto visible-source, so it should be possible to figure out with a little review.
That's the javascript included in the plugin crx. This is about code retrieved over API being executed (so that code being run cannot be approved by chrome webstore team)
Its a "tool call" definition in their code named 'execute_javascript', which takes in a "code" parameter and executes it. The code here being provided by the LLM which is not sitting locally. So that code is not present "in the plugin binary" at the time when chrome store team is reviewing it.
I'd very curious to know how they managed to deal with this then. There's always the option of embedding quickjs-vm within the addon (as a wasm module), but that would not allow the executed code to access the document.
> With Opus 4.5, Claude Code feels like having a god-level engineer beside you. Opinionated but friendly. Zero ego.
Who keeps forgetting variable names and function calling conventions it used 4 seconds ago while using 136 GBs of ram for the cli causing you to frequently force quit the whole terminal. Its not even human level.
And then hallucinating APIs that don't exist, breaking all the unit tests and giving up saying they're an "implementation detail", and over engineering a horrific class that makes Enterprise Fizzbuzz look reasonable
Except a god-level engineer wouldn't write unit tests that pass but don't actually test anything because it mocked the responses instead of testing the _actual_ responses, so your app is still broken despite tests passing and "victory!" claims by the "engineer".
Just one example of many personal experiences.
It is helpful, and very very fast at looking things up, sifting through logs and documentation to figure out a bug, writing ad-hoc scripts, researching solutions; but definitely junior-level when it comes to reasoning, you really have to keep your thinking cap on and guide it.
been using iterm for 10 years. Didn't update recently. claude code is the only new factor in my setup. I can visibly predict as i am using claude code when its about to happen (when conversation goes above 200 messages and then uses sub agents leading to somehow infinite rerendering of the message timeline and they seemingly use a html to bash rendering thing because ... ) so yeah maybe you are right iterm is not able to handle those rerendering or maybe the monitor is broken.
I use xterm, and the visual glitch doesn't crash anything, so maybe try that? I suspect though maybe you're using much longer sessions than I do, with the talk of sub agents and all.
I've mostly just been using it for single features and then often just quitting it until I have the next dumb idea to try out.
My entire codebase is in a certain style that's very easy to infer from just looking around in the same file, yet Claude Code routinely makes up its own preferences and doesn't respect the style even given an instruction in CLAUDE.md. Claude Code brings its own garbage even when there's plenty of my own garbage to glean from. That's not what GIGO is supposed to be.
There is a reasonable argument that your question is at least NP, and plausibly NP-hard or harder depending on how you formalize the verification oracle.
