Lots of humans use AI to draft emails. I see it all over the business world. I would assume it's real sentiment and respond accordingly. They likely wrote something real and had AI polish it.
I generally produce nearly the same code I'd write myself about 5x faster with AI. I don't just let Claude Code run wild for a long time and have a mess to review. I have it do small chunks I can quickly review, give it feedback, iterate, etc until I like the output, then I move on to the next step. This takes time of course but I've found it faster than reviewing a giant mess of a code review.
My experience as well. Opus 5.5 is really good at matching the existing coding style. I often look at code and think I wrote it, only to realize it was written by Opus.
The trick is to give it enough guidance about the style you prefer.
Because human beings are irrational and want "apps". I have numerous examples of native apps that are just wrappers around the web app performing extremely well (massively increasing conversion rates, revenue, etc) over the existing PWA.
In the EU some companies simply cannot grow because of laws like that. They might want to grow, but can't because of laws that says if your company has more than X employees you suddenly have to deal with a bunch of extra bureaucracy and reporting requirements. These companies purposely stay small, and basically has stopped hiring, even if they could use more manpower.
This has its own issues. Big bad actors can now split their activities between more smaller companies to avoid some regulation. I've seen it happening.
Selective enforcement is just tyranny, but what I think they were getting at is a minimum size enshrined in law. I don't think it's a great idea, really highlights how arbitrary this all is and presents a risk of advantaging the worst actors more than real makers, but it's a valid way forward.
Laws like this are a good idea but its too burdensome for small companies so it cripples innovations and small businesses. Only applying it to larger companies let's it apply to only the companies who have the largest impact and also can afford compliance, while not stifling small businesses. Not perfect but I think it's a decent tradeoff.
there are many federal laws in the US (and im sure other countries) that only apply when your company reaches a certain size. This is the most obvious way to balance regulatory burden on new companies while still enforcing regulations on large companies that have enough resources to comply.
That would just add tons of extra paperwork and a much larger administrative system to vet all the sizes of companies. IRL they will probably not even be enforcing this widely (like GDPR) but the costs will still be imposed on any business wanting to sell in Europe.
10% would be more typical. Perhaps the math is that OpenRouter inside Stripe makes it twice as valuable. You often see acquisitions priced on the value of the company post-acquisition.
Their business models are actually kind of similar. Stripe is just passing money between financial institutions and taking a small cut. OpenRouter is basically the same thing. They might have shared ability on how to run an effective pass through business.
Apparently. The price does seem high, but the value of a company is based on it's finances. You could argue companies like Google are just middlemen too.
