Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

No panties, fishnets ripped open, tiny limp clit on full display. This is what a BBC prepared sissy looks like, broken in and desperate 🔥💦 #NSFW #Trap #Chastity #SissyHypno #Feminization #Trans #Sissy #TinyClitty #SexMachine #BlondeTrans #SissyTraining #TransGirl #TransPorn #SissySlut #femboy

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

I tested Claude Code on a fresh account - 1,500 lines of HTML cost me 50% of my window. Full video and summary is here.. I just ran a recorded test on Claude Code with a fresh account (Pro, not Max - my main account was 20x Max) , and the result is honestly insane. The task was trivial: create 3 simple demo HTML pages, around 500 lines each. Roughly 1,500 lines of code total. Nothing massive. Nothing enterprise-grade. Nothing that should meaningfully stress a premium coding product. And yet Claude Code burned through 40% of my 5-hour window almost immediately. I ran the exact same test with Codex, and it consumed only 2%. Then it got even worse: after the session ended, I did absolutely nothing for 15 minutes, and Claude still ate another 10%. Total: 50% of the 5-hour window gone for a tiny HTML demo. My weekly usage had already started at 2% before I even really used it, and after this tiny test it jumped to 8%. Now let us be generous and assume this entire run used around 30k tokens total. If 30k tokens represents 10% of weekly usage, that implies around 300k tokens per week. That is roughly 1.2M-1.3M tokens per month, and even if you round up aggressively, you are still in the 1.5M token range. Using the Sonnet 4.6 pricing you list: $3 per 1M input tokens $15 per 1M output tokens How exactly is this supposed to make sense for a paid coding product? Because from the user side, this no longer looks like "premium usage protection." It looks like a quota system that is either wildly inefficient, badly broken, or being accounted in a way users are not being told about. And that is before I even get to my main account: my $200 Max plan now dies in a single day. Just a few months ago, similar or heavier usage would last me about a week. So no, I do not buy the "maybe you just used it more" excuse anymore. Something is clearly broken in Claude Code. Either token accounting is broken, context handling is broken, background consumption is broken, or all three. Alex Albert is this really the experience you want users to pay for? Just watch the video. I tried to be very transparent and clear for your team! I was fan of Claude but just disappointed! And if you want, send me the detailed token accounting for this session and let us inspect it together publicly. Because from where I am standing, this is no longer a small pricing annoyance. It looks like something seriously wrong is happening, and users deserve a real explanation.

Hayrettin Tüzel

26,854 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Claude Code + computer use is f*cking cracked 🤯 Build a landing page → Claude opens Chrome, looks at it, spots every issue, and fixes it — without you describing a single thing. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who are still vibe-coding landing pages and advertorials in Claude Code, then manually opening them in Chrome, spotting 15 things wrong, and describing every visual issue back to Claude one at a time. If you're building pages in Claude Code and your workflow looks like this — build the page, open it in Chrome, spot broken spacing, go back to Claude, type "the CTA button is too low and the hero image is cut off," wait for the fix, open Chrome again, find 3 new issues, describe those too ... Claude Code + computer use eliminates the entire loop: → Claude writes the full landing page or advertorial → Opens Chrome and navigates to it → Spots layout issues, broken spacing, off-brand colors, missing elements → Fixes everything and re-checks until the page looks right → Tests your Shopify product pages by clicking through like a real customer → Walks through your checkout flow and flags friction before customers hit it → You only see the finished, visually verified result No describing what you see on screen. No "the CTA button needs more contrast" back-and-forth. No being the eyeballs for an AI that can't see. What you get: → Landing pages and advertorials Claude builds AND visually QAs before you ever look at them → Product pages Claude clicks through — testing layout, images, and CTAs like a real user → HTML dashboards Claude opens and verifies the charts actually render → Checkout flows Claude walks through step by step to catch friction → All of it happening in one session — build, test, fix, done One prompt. Claude builds it, checks it, and fixes it. You just review the finished page. I put together a full playbook with the exact setup, the prompts, and 5 DTC workflows that use Claude Code + computer use. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "CLAUDE" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

19,079 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce