Yeah, I was very confused, opened up Chromium and there it was.
It's so weird to think that you can build a webpage where you do something so incredibly "fancy" that one (sadly now minority) fully-featured web browser can't display a simple web form.
I mean, some people can have one of your quoted opinions, and some people can have the other. That's fine, people can not like this for their own reasons.
I applied for this, but it puts a bad taste in my mouth. I've been working on open source for over 20 years now, and while I don't expect any compensation, being offered something like this feels a little icky. If they really want to "thank" me, give it to me for free indefinitely. They've benefited immeasurably from all the open source code they've sucked in as training data. Their product literally would not exist without it.
That's fair, but I think it's also not unreasonable for Anthropic to want some sort of "compensation" for giving something away for free (even if it's just a paltry 6-months, which screams "sales tactic"). The terms around getting free stuff sometimes have things that aren't compatible with something about how we do things, and that's fine; we just don't get to take advantage of the free stuff.
Yup. I have the $20 plan, and I've been focusing full time (and then some) on my open source projects. I usually hit the limit 2-3 hours into the 5-hour limit window, and have to wait for it to reset.
In a way it's kinda nice, because it forces me not to rely on it too much, and I mostly use it for more mechanical changes, nothing that I'd consider "creative" (because I enjoy that part of programming!). But it's also frustrating if I'm, say, building a planning document or getting suggestions or help with debugging, and suddenly I hit the limit and have to context switch.
So if I get into this program, I will probably enjoy Max 20x a lot, and then be really bummed when the 6-month period is over. Not sure if I'll be bummed enough to fork over the cash for it to continue, but I'm sure I will be very tempted to do so.
It's a marketing/sales tactic. I already have a Claude Pro subscription. I use it quite a bit, and do hit the limits often enough (sometimes needing to wait 2-3 hours before it resets), but I'm not convinced I want to spend more on the Max subscription, even though I do get a ton of value out of it.
Giving me Max 20x for 6 months would just get me hooked more on it to the point that I'd likely upgrade my subscription after the free period is over. Or I'd just go back to Pro and feel shittier about it.
If they were giving it away for free indefinitely, then that would actually be generous and altruistic. I don't think it's a spectrum; I think nothing free is one thing, some defined period of free is a sales tactic, and free indefinitely/forever is actual generosity.
> Once a teen is interested in getting into the edgy stuff there is no amount of regulation can stop them.
That's really the thing too. I did grow up in the 80s and 90s, and I managed to find porn and all other sorts of things that my parents didn't want me to have or do. And I wasn't even a bad, difficult-to-parent kid. I was just a pre-teen and teen who wanted to do stuff my parents didn't approve of, just like pretty much every other kid on the planet.
In the end, I turned out fine! Not perfect (I have my issues, like most of us), but I'm happy and successful. I have no doubt that the same would be true if I'd grown up in the 00s like you did.
> But I also think that society has a duty to facilitate that.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The disagreement is around how intrusive the government should be in facilitating that. And some people (myself included) believe that these sorts of age checks and attestation are too intrusive, even if the stated goal is a good one.
Did you perhaps miss the part in the comment you're replying to where I said that I disagree with both attestation and ID checks? I went on to suggest a concrete method of facilitation whereby websites are legally mandated to self report content ratings.
Notice that the context here is a comment farther up the chain decrying the enablement of totalitarian parental control.
You be a parent and set limits on your children's behavior. You enforce it through the usual means. You don't rely on a nanny-state government to do it for you. That's abandoning your responsibility as a parent.
And let's not seriously try to say internet availability is the same as free-for-all liquor stores and casinos on as your physical neighbors. It's just not. It's still easier to restrict what a kid does online than it is to restrict their physical movements.
(And frankly, it's not that hard to restrict a kid's physical movements.)
Exactly. OS makers should build fine-grained parental controls into their OSes, and parents, and only parents, get to decide how much (if any at all) of that to enable for their children.
(And OS makers need to get better at this; from what I understand, it's not difficult for savvy kids to bypass parental controls on iOS and Android.)
> GPLv3 clearly has no provisions to introduce arbitrary prohibitions into the license without losing compatibility.
It's not even just that. The license expressly forbids adding other conditions and restrictions, and says that people who receive software, licensed under the GPL, with added conditions ore restrictions, can just remove those restrictions.
If the author really wants to add a restriction like this, they have to switch to a different license.
It's so weird to think that you can build a webpage where you do something so incredibly "fancy" that one (sadly now minority) fully-featured web browser can't display a simple web form.
reply