Pretty sure that is a Model M, just whitelabeled.

Yep. That sounds like Pahlavi to me.

I'm hoping that this is part of a specific plan - Reza Pahlavi has made statements about his trying to influence Trump to not strike Iran's energy sector. Given that those shortly followed Trump's own threats to do so, it seems reasonable to think that the whole interaction could be designed to make Pahlavi look good in front of the Iranian public by apparently obtaining concessions from the US via diplomacy.

If that is the case, I'd expect some kind of official recognition of Pahlavi, or at least some kind of unofficial indication that the US would consider him to be an acceptable leader.

Would the Iranians accept Pahlavi? They don't love the current regime, but overthrowing the Shah was widely popular.

I hear that Pahlavi is less bad than his father, but surely somebody in Iran has a claim to leadership without being an obvious American puppet.

I'm just a dude in the southern US, so I obviously don't have first-hand knowledge. The best I can do is speak with my friends and colleagues with ties to Iran; those conversations have led me to believe that Pahlavi is the best option to lead a transitional government.

From what I gather it's not that the Iranian people want to return to a Shah, but that Reza has been consistent in stating a desire to lead Iran to a more democratic system, and he has enough trust and goodwill with the people of Iran to make it work.

The outcome I'm hoping for is for the IRGC and Basij to be desolved or effectively powerless, with Reza Pahlavi leading a transitional government and keeping the promises that he's made thus far to liberalize. I want to see him go down in history not as the man who restored the Shah of Iran, but as the person who refused to accept personal authority and instead entrusted it to the people.

I don't think the war is a good idea, and I'm reluctant to recommend outcomes to a culture different from mine.

That said... if it turns out the Pahlavi can bring about an Iran that makes most of its people reasonably happy and free, I'm all for it.

I do my best to speak about my own political views rarely here, mostly when they're important context to what I'm trying to convey.

> if it turns out the Pahlavi can bring about an Iran that makes most of its people reasonably happy and free, I'm all for it.

Yeah, that's where I am. I'm hoping it works out that way because that's the best path toward a free and happy Iran, not recommending it as a course of action :)

This is impressive, and a bit terrifying. My “profile” is extremely in depth and mostly accurate. I’ve always treated this account as at most pseudo-anonymous, so no harm done - but there is easily enough information there to identify me. In fact, I think I’ll try to do just that tomorrow as a weekend project.

I created this account after using my real name here for years, to build at least some kind of separation. At the time, I think I was applying for jobs and had a couple of interviews - positive ones, oddly enough - where my political views were referenced. Given our political climate in the US, I decided it would be best to make at least my current views more difficult to associate with me.

For me, this just underscores the fact that while we always knew those data were out there for someone targeting you and determined - this makes it an order of magnitude easier to access.

… I just typed out an explanation why I made the above statement, but decided not to post it as it describes a potential criminal act that would likely be very profitable :(.

I drive a '91 GMC half-ton, with a 350 v8. I consistently get 14MPG around town and 16MPG on the highway.

I don't drive enough to justify the expense of something more efficient, and it was my grandfather's. I'm content to just keep it in good condition and drive it until it's either unrepairable or one of my kids wants it.

Nope, I was surprised to learn a while back that both are correct.

When Chevy introduced them in 1973, they ran an ad campaign where they called it the "Big Dooley": https://www.vintagepaperads.com/assets/images/CQ0501.jpg

I've always called is a "dually", but the ad is older than I am, so...

If, like me, you like to script your Mac environment setup, the following two commands SHOULD do the same thing:

    defaults write com.apple.AppleMultitouchTrackpad TrackpadThreeFingerDrag -bool true
    defaults write com.apple.driver.AppleBluetoothMultitouch.trackpad TrackpadThreeFingerDrag -bool true

Unfortunately I've not been able to verify this, as it doesn't take effect until you log out and back in, and I'm in the middle of a task. Once it's done I'll test it and either update this post or comment with my results, depending on how long it takes me.

ETA: I tested it, and the behavior is correct when I log back in after running the above. Oddly though, the settings aren't showing as turned on in the settings panel. If anyone has a scriptable solution to that I'd love to hear it.

Don’t ask it to make changes off the bat, then - ask it to make a plan. Then inspect the plan, change it if necessary, and go from there.

I do. I tend to follow a strict Research, Plan, Implement workflow. It does greatly help, but it doesn’t eliminate all problems.

> some people really are saying "fix this" instead of saying "x fn is doing y when someone makes a request to it. Please attempt to fix x and validate it by accessing the endpoint after and writing tests"

This works about 85% of the time IME, in Claude Code. My normal workflow on most bugs is to just say “fix this” and paste the logs. The key is that I do it in plan mode, then thoroughly inspect and refine the plan before allowing it to proceed.

> complain they aren't getting great results without a lot of hand holding

This is what I don’t understand - why would I “complain” about “hand holding”? Why would I just create a Claude skill or analogue that tells the agent to conform to my preferences?

I’ve done this many times, and haven’t run into any major issues.