If memory serves me, Nano Banana allows generating/editing photos of children. But anything that could be misinterpreted, gets blocked, even absolutely benign and innocent things (especially if you are asking to modify a photo that you upload there). So they allow, but they turn on the guardrails to a point that might not be useful in many situations.
I'm curious about this. I'm not a frontend engineer but enjoy tinkering on simple frontend UIs for my hobby projects, and I've found Tailwind nice for creating encapsulated components more easily. It's funny that it skips the entire cascading part of Cascading Style Sheets though. Are there major downsides besides that?
> It's funny that it skips the entire cascading part of Cascading Style Sheets though. Are there major downsides besides that?
I think cascading is a bad default. It's useful, but only sometimes, and often causes headaches like unintended coupling and confusion about why rules are being overridden. The utility class approach (like Tailwind) makes a lot of issues like this go away. I don't see a good reason why the traditional approach is worth the extra pain or discipline.
CSS can be laser-like specific if you want it to. Want to only affect that thing? Use ids, inline styles or learn how to write proper selectors.
I am by no means a CSS expert, but 90% of CSS issues I heard complaints about boiled down to the complainers not having spent the time necessary to learn the basics. And the other 10% were solved by :has()
That being said, most other styling solutions I had used (e.g. in GUI libraries) will quickly make you wish you had CSS.
> CSS can be laser-like specific if you want it to. Want to only affect that thing? Use ids, inline styles or learn how to write proper selectors.
You've still go all the normal CSS problems like having to debug complex selectors, jumping between files to debug styling, having to name lots of things you're only going to use once, verbose media queries, verbose styling attributes, and not knowing when it's safe to delete styling because you don't know where it's shared.
And for what benefits? To say we're writing CSS "the right way", when it was designed for styling traditional documents and not for complex UIs?
This also strikes me as a "if everyone learned to do it properly, there wouldn't be a problem" statement. It's ignoring the reality that nobody can agree on the proper way to write CSS, and writing discipled CSS is fatiguing and time consuming. And even if you could get everyone to adopt the same approach, the above issues are still a big deal.
It's a real failing when a language or methodology requires you to invent your own complex discipline to tame it (e.g. C and C++), and get everyone on the team to follow this. At some stage, it's better to scrap everything and try again with what was learned to avoid the mess.
> 90% of CSS issues I heard complaints about boiled down to the complainers not having spent the time necessary to learn the basics. And the other 10% were solved by :has()
I really don't agree, I understand traditional CSS and how to use complex selectors and it's just not a good approach except mostly for styling traditional Markdown-like documents and adding your own utility classes. If laser-like specific selectors is something I want more of the time, I want this as the default and for it to be easy.
Tailwind is a very thin layer above CSS and you can't use it properly without knowing CSS. Coupled with the way you reuse styles in Tailwind by using templates (instead of sharing via classes), it solves most of the problems with CSS in a simple way that people find simple to follow.
Tailwind's major downside is it isn't the "traditional" way (which nobody can agree on anyway for complex UI styling), so Tailwind gets attacked for being the wrong way without its benefits and tradeoffs being examined properly.
Jumping between the files? The cascading part means you can always add in a file after and overwrite it. I don't see how this would get better without the cascading part.
My point isn't that CSS is perfect. My point is that someone has yet to show me a better styling language that isn't purely hypothetical. I am happy to learn new languages if there are clear benefits.
I mean having to jump between the HTML and multiple CSS files (which often you have to track down by using the browser inspector) to make edits to while styling things. When HTML and styling are tightly coupled anyway and almost always edited together, it just slow everything down for no good reason vs co-locating them together via utility classes.
> The cascading part means you can always add in a file after and overwrite it. I don't see how this would get better without the cascading part.
If you mean overwriting styles set somewhere else, this is what makes CSS confusing and hard to refactor. Cascading is just best avoided whenever you can.
> I am happy to learn new languages if there are clear benefits.
I can recommend looking at Tailwind. Make sure to use it with some kind of templating language e.g. so a "button" component goes in a template file, as that's the way you reuse styling (vs copy/paste) which critics seem to miss. It makes styling much simpler and quicker (everything is co-located, no need to write selectors, no need to make up class names, very concise syntax especially for mobile), especially if you're doing complex responsive designs.
I am editing my CSS files predominantly in the browsers inspector this has the benefit showing you what it looks like directly, potentially even with mobile preview.
I also don't need to hunt down CSS files because I rarely ever got more than 5 css files in projects I authored myself usually more like three: style.css for general stuff, fonts.css for fonts and multiple foo.css for page/section-specific stuff that isn't needed elsewhere thus only one of those is ever loaded.
For most "theming"-like stuff I make extensive use of css variables I want all my things to look like the button? Well just add the same styling with the variables in place.
As for the divide between HTML and CSS: to me HTML is 99% semantic. That means I describe the information as it should be described and the rest is done in CSS. Nowadays I rarely ever feel the need to create useless divs or go back and edit the HTML to fix styling issues thanks to grid layouts.
It wasn't always that way, but thst was to a degree the point of the linked article as well.
> As for the divide between HTML and CSS: to me HTML is 99% semantic. That means I describe the information as it should be described and the rest is done in CSS.
How do you visually group and align elements in designs like this one by only using semantic elements? I agree there's a few things in there that could be ol/ul/li tags but there's a lot of divs that are just flex containers or flex items. I don't see what useful semantics they could all have when they're mostly for cosmetic reasons.
This is legitimately useful! I already have been using LLMs to write userscripts, buck you extension make the whole process 100% times easier, especially because it is already running on the browser, instead of you having to go back and forward with copy and paste code into VSCode or some chatbot.
That's the goal! This whole project started because I was originally just asking ChatGPT to write userscripts. For generic ones, it was okay, but the feedback loop was slow: I had to save the page archive, manually feed it to LLM, write a detailed prompt, generate a script (that probably didn't work initially), and then repeat that process until I was happy.
Now I can do that all in seconds (and iterate just as quickly). I also love the ability to easily share scripts I made with friends. Hopefully it's useful for you!
Thanks for replying. I wasn't expecting a reply since the thread was so popular and there were a bunch of comments :) Since I have your attention, I would like to ask something that isn't quite about the project itself, but rather about the ease of use that projects like this will bring.
Do you think pages in the future might start locking down and making it harder for users to customize things? Sort of DRM? Sometimes, for instance, on Cloudflare checking captcha pages, often I have to disable my userscript extension because some of my scripts interfere with the captcha or something.
And as some people pointed out, I'm somewhat skeptical sites would like users modifying their pages, not because those custom modifications wouldn't be useful to their users and make their user experience better, but because those sites do not want a better user experience for their users. Hell, if they wanted or were okay with that, YouTube Premium would offer you an API so that you can watch your stuff without being bothered by their horrible official front-end in your preferred alternative front-end.
So I'm just curious what your take on that is.
Again, loved the extension, and a small suggestion I would make is for the extension to store locally the prompts that generated that code, like the conversation. I'm not sure if this exists—at least I wasn't able to find it—but I think it could be useful.
> Thanks for replying. I wasn't expecting a reply since the thread was so popular and there were a bunch of comments :)
The only way you can build a product that people love is by talking to people, so I am doing my best to keep up with all the feedback here!
To your main question: Tampermonkey has >11M downloads, which seems like a lot but at the scale of YouTube, Facebook, etc. the impact is largely inconsequential. I could understand concern about truly policy violating scripts (spam content/requests, etc.) but much of what people seem to want so far is basic Quality of Life things that should already be a native option in the first place.
To me, ad blockers seem like they much more materially impact these sites, and though there is pushback (and setbacks like Manifest V3), ad blockers are still kicking. I don't love that the marketshare of chromium continues to climb, as that gives Google massive power over the future of the web, but I can't do much to solve that.
Who knows what the future holds, but for now I am just focused on enabling people to have more control over their browsing experience :)
> Again, loved the extension, and a small suggestion I would make is for the extension to store locally the prompts that generated that code, like the conversation. I'm not sure if this exists—at least I wasn't able to find it—but I think it could be useful.
>By the time you're done the phone is a brick that can't do anything useful. At some point you have to admit that adults are responsible for the choices they make.
Absolutely this! It's just nanny state all over again.
This is somehow even worse. It's strictly enforced with no regard for context, you don't have the constitutional rights you have against the government and you can't vote them out.
Markets are supposed to be better because you can switch to a competitor but that only applies when there is actually competition. Two companies both doing the same thing is not a competitive market.
>GenAI is not used to replace or generate new talent performances
This is 100% a lie.
Studios will use this to replace humans. In fact, the idea is for the technology – AI in general – to be so good you don't need humans anywhere in the pipeline. Like, the best thing a human could produce would only be as good as the average output of their model, except the model would be far cheaper and faster.
And... that's okay, honestly. I mean, it's a capitalism problem. I believe with all my strength that this automation is fundamentally different from the ones from back in the day. There won't be new jobs.
Eventually consumers will use the technology to replace studios.
Any studios that isn't playing ostrich has realized this (so possibly none of them) and should be just trying to extract as much value as possible as quickly as possible before everything goes belly up.
Of course timelines are still unclear. It could be 5 years or 20, but it is coming.
The issue wasn't if they said that thing or not; companies say a lot of things which are fundamentally a lie, things to keep up appearances – which are oftentimes not enforced. It's like companies arguing they believe in fair pay while using Chinese sweatshops or whatever.
In this case, for instance, Netflix still has a relation with their partners that they don't want to damage at this moment, and we are not at the point of AI being able to generate a whole feature length film indistinguishable from a traditional one . Also, they might be apprehensive regarding legal risks and the copyrightability at this exact moment; big companies' lawyers are usually pretty conservative regarding taking any "risks," so they probably want to wait for the dust to settle down as far as legal precedents and the like.
Anyway, the issue here is:
"Does that statement actually reflect what Netflix truly think and that they actually believe GenAI shouldn't be used to replace or generate new talent performances?"
Because they believe in the sanctity of human authorship or whatever? And the answer is: no, no, hell no, absolutely no. That is a lie.
"Does that statement actually reflect what Netflix truly think and that they actually believe GenAI shouldn't be used to replace or generate new talent performances?"
The if-statement "If you want to do X, you need to get approval." probably does actually reflect what Netflix truly think, but it doesn't mean they believe X shouldn't be done. It means they believe X is risky and they want to be in control of whether X is done or not.
I don't see how you could read the article and come away with the impression that Netflix believe GenAI shouldn't be used to replace or generate new talent performances.
I’m inclined to agree. The goalposts will move once the time is right. I’ve already personally witnessed it happening; a company sells their AI-whatever strictly along the lines of staff augmentation and a force multiplier for employees. Not a year later and the marketing has shifted to cost optimization, efficiency, and better “uptime” over real employees.
The truth is that Netflix, Amazon, or any other company, honestly, would fire 99% of their workforce if it were possible, because they only care about profit – hell, they are companies, that's why they exist. At the same time, brands have to pretend they care about society, people having jobs, the climate, whatever, so they can't simply say: "Yeah, we exist to make money and we totally want to fire you guys as soon as possible." As you said, it's all masked as staff augmentation and other technical mumbo jumbo.
>GenAI is not used to replace or generate new talent performances
>> This is 100% a lie.
We’ve had CGI for decades and generally don’t mind. However, the point at which AI usage becomes a negative (eg: the content appears low quality) because of its usage, I’d expect some backlash and pulling back in the industry.
In film and tv, customers have so much choice. If a film or tv is low effort, it’s likely going to get low ratings.
Every business and industry is obviously incentivized to cut costs, but, if those cost cuts directly affect the reputation and imagery of your final product, you probably want to choose wisely which things you cut..
I think you're right, in general - certainly AI will replace background actors, though that's already been happening for years without AI generation. I'm also pretty sure that if/when AI can generate whole films, then that'll happen, too.
However, this statement is a hell of a lot better than I expected to see, and suggests to me that the actors' strike a few years ago was necessary and successful. It may, as you say, only be holding back the "capitalism problem" dike, but... At least it's doing that?
I would somewhat disagree with this statement being a sign the strike was a success because, like, AI is not at the point of generating a whole movie in human quality today, so Netflix issuing this statement like this now, in November 2025, costs them literally nothing, and feels more like a consolation prize: "Here, take this statement, so you guys can pretend the strike achieved anything."
When AI gets good enough, 2, 3, 5, 10 years from now, they simply reverse path, and this statement wouldn't delay Netflix embracing AI films that much, if anything.
> I would somewhat disagree with this statement being a sign the strike was a success because, like, AI is not at the point of generating a whole movie in human quality today, so Netflix issuing this statement like this now, in November 2025, costs them literally nothing, and feels more like a consolation prize: "Here, take this statement, so you guys can pretend the strike achieved anything."
>
> When AI gets good enough, 2, 3, 5, 10 years from now, they simply reverse path, and this statement wouldn't have delay Netflix embracing AI films that much, if anything.
There’s no guarantee AI will get good enough to replace anyone. We’ve pretty much run out of training data at this point. I’m a little annoyed that people speak about future progress like it’s an inevitability.
It's a shame the legal system favors big money, because courts typically rule that scraping public data is not against the law[1]. In spite of how much the platforms protest.
Sadly, big companies can bully the scrapers with nuisance lawsuits as long as they wear the scrapers down in legal costs before it gets to trial.
>someone can't claim they thought it would be OK to ask a developer for sex since we wrote down that that's not OK.
The person who thought this would be okay will not be stopped by a Code of Conduct.
The people who know it's not okay don't need a Code of Conduct.
The whole thing is useless. This is the same retarded shit as people stating their pronouns, trying to engineer every social human relation.
Don't be a jerk with people. If someone looks a certain way, it would be kind to assume they want to be treated in a certain way, etc, etc. You don't need terms of conduct and similar bullshit for that.
reply