Incredible documentary about the politics around EV's made before Tesla's became mainstream.
People were demanding and protesting asking GM to let time buy their EV'1 after the lease, but they destroyed all the cars. So did Toyota for the EV RAV4's.
No, you are paying to use Claude code… it uses the model underneath, but you aren’t paying for raw model usage. For whatever reason, Anthropic thinks this is the best way to divide up their market.
They want to charge more for direct access to the model.
Why would anyone pay a subscription for barebones LLM agent?
You can beat that drum all you want, but you know it's bullshit. People pay the subscription for the AI, not the tool that consumes it. That tool being crap is why everyone started using third-party tools.
The reason they are blocking third-party usage is they want developers to use only their models and no competitors.
That's not up to you or me. I think it's pretty clear by the phrase "Claude Code subscription" that it's meant for only "Claude Code". Why are you confused?
This could be so easily abused by companies who spend thousands of dollars per month for API costs you could just reverse engineer it and use the subscription tokens to get that down to a few hundred
Netflix would not even exist if you could just freely download all of the media to your computer and play it anytime because of licensing agreements and other factors. So you can think that they are wrong but that's not really rooted in reality or practicality.
Can I script and scrape Claude Code to provide the exact same data for consumption by the banned client? (This sounds like an interesting challenge for Claude Code to try...)
I don't think they are confused. They are simply challenging the assertion that the model should not work with other software. Which is fair because there is a lot of precedent around whether a service can dictate how it must be consumed. It's not a simple answer and there are good reasons for both sides. Whichever path we take will have wide consequences and shape our future in a very distinct way. So it is an important decision, and ultimately up to us, as a society to influence and guide.
IDK if Anthropic wants to offer a service at below cost, I don't think they should gate keep which client you access that service over. Or in other terms, I won't use a service that locks me into a client I don't like.
How do you draw that conclusion? If Anthropic wants to offer a service at below cost, they seem a lot more justified in restricting how and where they subsidize usage.
That seems mutual. They don’t want you to use this service with an arbitrary client and you don’t want to use this service that won’t allow an arbitrary client. So both of you don’t want the relationship. Seems fine.
For my part, I’m fine understanding that bundling allows for discounting and I would prefer to enable that.
what happens if that large enclosure fails and the CO2 freely flows outside?
That enclosure has a huge volume - area the size of several football fields, and at least 15 stories high. The article says it holds 2k tons of co2, which is ~1,000,000 cubic meters in volume.
CO2 is denser than air will pool closer to the ground, and will suffocate anyone in the area.
CO2 is in general less dangerous than inert gases, because we have a hypercapnic response - it's a very reliable way to induce people to leave the area, quite uncomfortable, and is actually one of the ways used to induce a panic attack in experimental settings.
If it were, say, argon, it would be much more likely to suffocate people, because you don't notice hypoxia the way you do hypercapnia. It can pool in basements and kill everyone who enters.
That being said it is an enormous volume of CO2, so the hypercapnic response in this case may not be sufficient if there's nowhere to flee to, as sadly happened in the Lake Nyos disaster you cited.
The last section of TFA is called "What happens if the dome is punctured?". The answer: a release of CO2 equal to about 15 transatlantic flights. People have to stand back 70m until it clears.
It would not be good, but it wouldn't be Bhopal. And there are still plenty of factories making pesticides.
Comparing it to X flights maybe correct from a greenhouse emissions standpoint, but extremely misleading from a safety perspective. A jet emits that co2 spread over tens of thousands of miles. The problem here is it all pooled in one location.
Also that statement of 70 meters seem very off, looking at the size of the building. What leads to suffocation is the inability to remove co2 from your body rather than lack of oxygen, and thus can be life threatening even at 4% concentration. It should impact a much much larger area.
Yep. When I had to fill CO2 tanks at a paintball shop yes there were times that I had to open a door (I mean we were talking a lot of fills in short time, btw fills had to start with draining the tank's existing volume so I could zero out the scale) but even indoors a door+fan was enough to keep even the nastiest of sale days OSHA compliant.
Also a 'puncture' is very different from the gasbag mysteriously vanishing from existence; My only other thought is that in cold regions (I saw wisconsin mentioned in the article) CO2 does not diffuse quite as fast and sometimes visibly so...
How did they calculate that evacuation distance? CO2 is heavy. That little house about 15m from the bubble needs to be acquired.
The topography matters. If the installation is in a valley, a dome rip could make air unbreathable, because the CO2 will settle at the bottom. People have been killed by CO2 fire extinguishing systems. It takes a reasonably high concentration, a few percent, but that can happen. They need alarms and handy oxygen masks.
Installations like this probably will be in valleys, because they will be attached to wind farms. The wind turbines go in the high spots and the energy storage goes in the low spots.
The distance is likely calculated based on the stored volume and the area you cover until the height is significantly below head height (because as you point out CO2 settles to the bottom). Regarding the little house 15m from the bubble, they are not planning to build this in residential areas, so it's very unlikely that there would be a house within 15m just for operational purposes already.
Again, from TFA, the install needs 5 hectares of flat land. I thought it was odd when the article mentioned "flat" land, but I assumed it was more about accommodating the bubble. Now I am thinking it is specifically to avoid the valleys you are describing.
Yeah, I was also immediately thinking about the Lake Nyos disaster. But that one released something like 200k tons of CO2 in an instant, whereas this facility has 2k tons, which would more likely be released more gradually.
Good luck running 70m in a CO2 dense atmosphere. And CO2 hugs the ground it does not float away. It will persist in low areas for quite a while.
Anyone in the local vicinity would need to carry emergency oxygen at all times to be able to get to a safe distance in case of rupture. Otherwise it's a death sentence, and not a particularly pleasant one as CO2 is the signal that triggers the feeling of suffocation.
It's unlikely that the thing will burst and disperse all CO2 immediately. It's just slightly higher pressure than the outside (that's the whole principle). So you have a slow leak of CO2 to the outside. You don't have to run that fast (or run at all).
The way I understood the quote, the safety distance is when they have to do an emergency deflate (e.g. due to wind). The way they calculate the 70 m is probably based on the volume and how large of a area you cover until the height is low enough that you can still breath.
Generally, because it's leaking to the outside, where there is going to be wind it will not stick around for long time I suspect.
> It's unlikely that the thing will burst and disperse all CO2 immediately.
This requires the people running this facility, and all the facilities based on it built by unrelated organizations in the future, to not cut engineering corners on the envelope. I don't take this for granted anymore. But as long as you don't get a big rip, then yeah, it'll be hard to build up a dangerous amount. I wonder if a legally mandatory cut and repair trial on the envelope would reduce risk significantly.
Speaking of wind, I also worry about whoever is downwind if there's a big release. I bet 70m is not quite far enough if it's in the wrong direction.
I wonder whether it'd be possible to augment the CO2 with something that would make it more detectable visually and aromatically, like we do natural gas.
Natural gas is naturally odorless and colorless. Therefore, by default, it can accumulate to dangerous levels without anyone noticing until too late. We make natural gas safer by making stink, and we make it stink by adding trace amounts of "odorizers" like thiophane to it.
I wonder whether we could do something similar for CO2 working fluid this facility uses --- make it visible and/or "smell-able" so that if a leak does happen, it's easier to react immediately and before the threshold of suffocation is reached. Odorizers are also dirt cheap. Natural gas industry goes through tons of the stuff.
> Many of the dependencies used names that are known to be “hallucinated” by AI chatbots. Developers frequently query these bots for the names of dependencies they need. LLM developers and researchers have yet to understand the precise cause of hallucinations or how to build models that don’t make mistakes. After discovering hallucinated dependency names, PhantomRaven uses them in the malicious packages downloaded from their site.
I found it very interesting that they used common AI hallucinated package names.
If that was the case, the message should be about a limit on re-enabling the feature n times, not about turning it off.
Also the if they are concerned about processing costs, the default for this should be off, NOT on. The default should for any feature like this that use customers personal data should be OFF for any company that respects their customers privacy.
> You are trying to reach really far out to find a plausible
This behavior tallies up with other things MS have been trying to do recently to gather as much personal data as possible from users to feed their AI efforts.
Their spokes person also avoided answering why they are doing this.
On the other hand, you comment seem to be trying to reach really far trying to find portray this as normal behavior.
I would have disagreed with you in the past by saying, "until it breaks something critical and you loose customers and business", but then again people just moved on from the Crowdstrike incident like business as usual.If something like that which grounded critical service globally and had an estimated 10 Billion Dollar economic impact doesn't change mindsets,I don't know what will.
That's because no one died. All the safety critical industries are already heavily regulated. E.g. check out for example standards like DO-178C (for software in airborne systems), where you even have to _prove_ correctness of every tool and dependency you use, on top of accountability and traceability of every single line of code in your own product.
Not to be pedantic, but people have died from software programming bugs being a primary contributing factor. One example: Therac-25 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25)
I only meant this in relation to Crowdstrike incident that was mentioned in the comment I replied to.
The standards and regulations in those other industries have changed dramatically (for the better) since Theract-25.
I mean, that was over 40y ago. Same thing for the Ariane 5 failure which is a staple of safety-critical classes (at least in Europe), it's not getting any younger.
If all the examples you can conjure are decades old*, is it any wonder that people don't really take it seriously? Software power the whole world, and yet the example of critical failure we constantly hear about is close to half a century old?
I think the more insidious thing is all the "minor" pains being inflicted by software bugs, that when summed up reach crazy level of harm. It's just diluted so less striking. But even then, it's hard to say if the alternative of not using software would have been better overall.
* maybe they've added Boeing 737 Max to the list now?
> If all the examples you can conjure are decades old
They're not ALL the examples I can conjure up. MCAS would probably be an example of a modern software bug that killed a bunch of people.
How about the 1991 failure of the Patriot missile to defend against a SCUD missile due to a software bug not accounting for clock drift, causing 28 lives lost?
Or the 2009 loss of Air France 447 where the software displayed all sorts of confusing information in what was an unreliable airspeed situation?
Old incidents are the most likely to be widely disseminated, which is why they're most likely to be discussed, but that doesn't mean that the discussion resolving around old events mean the situation isn't happening now.
In aviation, accidents never happen because of just a single factor. MCAS was mainly an issue in lack of adequate pilot training for this feature, AF447 was complete incompetence from the pilots. (the captain when he returned to the cockpit, quickly realized what was happening, but it was too late)
There's almost never a death where there is a single factor, regardless of aviation or not. You can always decompose systems into various layers of abstractions and relationships. But software bugs are definitely a contributing cause.
Another way to put it is that people have to literally die before a company is taken to task over their product's quality. What a sad, low bar for a product!
People died in Boeing 737 mcas incidents and what? Hot fix and business as usual.
Unless bug results in enormous direct financial loses like in Knight Capital, the result is the same: no one held responsible, continue business as usual.
This pricing model makes no sense for a non-profit that is trying to teach coding to teenagers worldwide. They will have a lot of users (remember) who might only send one or two messages once in a while. having to pay $7.25, for some who just asked a single question, is essentially extortion for a non profit like that who's primary purpose involves reaching out to as many people a possible.
> then I think that means they have over 2,000 active members in their Slack which does not sound like a "small nonprofit" to me.
those are not employees, but most likely the people they are trying to help.
Discord has a terrible permissions model. In Slack, anybody can create bots and channels without Workspace Admin. Slack worked best for the usecase, by far.
Well now I'm convinced that this confusion is the root of the billing issue. Is there not a way that the clients (i.e. the students they are helping) could be added as some kind of "customer" instead of an "internal employee". If not, then yes I could see why it would be expensive.
The issue isn't really with being moved to a higher tier of billing. Slack doesn't owe us their service for cheap forever. The problem is that we signed a contract with them earlier this year for our current rate, then suddenly today we were told that we have to pay $50k immediately or all of our 11 years of data will be deleted. That's an absurd demand. It's a shakedown
Requiring a legal notice at any point should disqualify a chat software immediately. Good on them to make the move and other users of Slack should be wary.
Perhaps there is more to the story, but my surprise about the business culture of Salesforce isn't too pronounced to be honest. Had do happen at some point in my opinion.
> Is it... time for me to take another pass at this?
Yes please. I was very excited for Sandstorm when it first started. Sad to see it's current stage.
Also I think the world around has evolved quite a bit wrt containerization from when Sandstorm first started. I wonder how you would build it today, if you were to build from scratch. Could you utilize docker for most of the containerization?
I think if I were doing it again I would not use containers at all. Instead I'd use isolates -- like Cloudflare Workers. In fact I'd probably build in on workerd (open source Cloudflare Workers runtime).
I'm obviously a bit biased here, as the architect of Cloudflare Workers. But, I think it's a much better fit for Sandstorm than containers were. Sandstorm suffered from some really bad cold start times, especially with every "grain" (e.g. document) running in its own container. It also led to a lot of other inefficiencies.
The down side of this is of course that it'd be much harder to port existing apps to the platform (unless maybe if they were already written to target Workers). But I think:
* Sandstorm didn't support existing apps very well anyway. It took a lot of work to convert apps for Sandstorm's security model. Many of the best Sandstorm apps were written from scratch for Sandstorm -- which incidentally was a lot easier than writing a traditional app, because Sandstorm took care of a lot of the work for you.
* AI-assisted coding takes a lot of the pressure off to support existing apps, because it'll be that much easier to build new ones. A Sandstorm-like environment would be a great fit for vibe coding since it takes care of so much of the boilerplate and enforces security in a way that the app can't screw it up.
The ability to convert existing apps is possibly one of the strongest benefits, even if it is a lot of work.
One person actually trying to take a pass at this without trying to support app porting is Olivier Forget's Dropserver. I'd argue he's got the closest model to Sandstorm's security focus without worrying about supporting legacy packaging.
I do think if vibe coding is up to the task it should be possible to vibe code Sandstorm right out of its dependency lock. ;)
> I do think if vibe coding is up to the task it should be possible to vibe code Sandstorm right out of its dependency lock. ;)
Not really -- you'd still need a systems engineer who is capable of doing it themselves to guide the AI and review the output. Otherwise it'll probably end up a buggy, insecure mess.
But buggy insecure messes are not a big deal when implementing application code inside the sandbox. So for that you can have a non-engineer prompt the AI and get a perfectly usable result.
Sandstorm takes away the concerns of implementing a SaaS, it takes away the identity handling, the hosting, all the nonsense and just gives you your own little world. It seems like it would be a really nice way to maintain family or comminity, or even small business tools, if it were just a bit more polished and focused on use by non-experts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uep5zOrsAEA
Incredible documentary about the politics around EV's made before Tesla's became mainstream.
People were demanding and protesting asking GM to let time buy their EV'1 after the lease, but they destroyed all the cars. So did Toyota for the EV RAV4's.