Anthropic is walking a very thin line here. The competition between models is intense and the only differentiator right now is the so-called harness that gets put over them. Anthropic needs a niche and they tried to find one by addressing developers. And they have been doing very well!
What I think they are forgetting in this silly stubbornness is that competition is really fierce, and just as they have gained appreciation from developers, they might very quickly lose it because of this sort of stupidity (for no good reason).
Well they've successfully burned a bridge with me. I had 2 max subs, cancelled one of them and have been using Codex religiously for the last couple of weeks. Haven't had a need for Claude Code at all, and every time I open it I get annoyed at how slow it is and the lack of feedback - looking at it spin for 20 minutes on a simple prompt with no feedback is infuriating. Honestly, I don't miss it at all.
You have to go into /models then use the left/right arrow keys to change it. It’s a horrible UI design and I had no idea mine was set to high. You can only tell by the dim text at the bottom and the 3 potentially highlighted bars.
On high It would think for 30+ minutes, make a plan, then when I started the plan it would either compact and reread all my files, or start fresh and read my files, then compact after 2-3 changes and reread the files.
High reasoning is unusable with Opus 4.6 in my opinion. They need at least 1M context for this to work.
> companies who will claim to recycle your products or donate them to good causes in other countries, but actually they’ll just end up on eBay or even in some cases being injected back in to retail channels
Isn't that good though? Unless the defects make the product somehow dangerous, this means that it found its way to users who are OK with it, thus avoiding waste. And someone even made money in the process.
It's good for shoppers (if they're informed), the recycler, and the environment. It's bad for the original maker.
Imagine a factory mix-up means some ExampleCo jeans are made of much lower quality materials than normal. They'll wear out much faster. But ExampleCo's quality control does its job, notices the inferior quality before they hit store shelves, and sends them for recycling.
If the recycler sells them on ebay as 'never worn ExampleCo jeans' then:
1. Some people who would have paid ExampleCo for jeans instead pay the recycler - leading to lost sales.
2. Some of the customers complain online about the bad quality, damaging ExampleCo's reputation
3. Some of the customers ask for replacements, which are provided at ExampleCo's expense.
>If the recycler sells them on ebay as 'never worn ExampleCo jeans' then
the recycler will have undoubtedly violated a contract they have with ExampleCo and will lose in civil court and pay significant penalties greater than the money they made selling never worn ExampleCo jeans and also, undoubtedly, suffer from not having ExampleCo as a customer for their services in the future.
But the recycler has all the papers and documentation that they lawfully contracted an overseas company for wholesale recycle of the product. What's your civil court's jurisdiction? You might be able to play wack-a-mole with ebay, temu, alibaba express sellers through civil court in your jurisdiction assuming you have the money of course.
I'm supposing ExampleCo's civil court's jurisdiction covers the recycler's location, otherwise ExampleCo would have really stupid management.
I'm supposing the contract with the recycler would hold the recycler liable, and whatever third party contracts they made with another company would not matter one bit. If ExampleCo contracts with RecycleCo to recycle pants and they do not get recycled then RecycleCo is liable to ExampleCo, yes RecycleCo has contracts with OverseasRecycleCo and it is up to RecycleCo to sue OverseasRecycleCo to recoup the losses they had to pay to ExampleCo; ExampleCo will probably not be suing OverseasRecycleCo, they will take their pound of flesh out of RecycleCo. All of this of course implies that they have some way of verifying that pants they find out in the world are in fact pants that should have been recycled.
What jurisdiction will the suit between RecycleCo and OverseasRecycleCo be taking place in? Depends on the location of the two entities, and possibly also on contractual conditions.
I totally admit that it is not ideal to sue over breaches of contract, it is almost always preferable that breaches not happen because when breaches don't happen it means that things are going the way you specified that they should go and you should be happy.
But let's go to another point here:
what is it about recycling that means that clothes will be taken and resold instead of recycled in greater numbers than clothes that were supposed to be destroyed? Nowadays clothes that are meant to be destroyed are sometimes not, and sold and ExampleCo suffers in the same way as they would with recycled clothes. I suppose ExampleCo must be able to tell if clothes that they find out on third party sites are among clothes that should have been destroyed nowadays otherwise this whole thing is moot and exactly the same as it is now.
Sometimes clothes are stolen from trucks and trains and sold, will this stop happening because of all these clothes that were supposed to have been recycled destroying the market for stolen clothes?
Most non-authorized sales of ExampleCo pants are not actually lower quality ExampleCo pants destined for destruction but fake ExampleCo pants, because ExampleCo as a brand is just so exciting that there are lots of fake ones made, because most pants that are sent for destruction are destroyed and only some are diverted to resellers.
Will the surplus of pants from ExampleCo that were supposed to be recycled but for some reason are not because "oh no, it is impossible to sue people in this new world with recycling going on" going to be so great in amount that instead of completely fake ExampleCo pants there will instead be only ExampleCo pants of lower than normal ExampleCo pants quality?
Why exactly will lower than normal quality ExampleCo pants destroy the brand value of ExampleCo more than counterfeit ExampleCo pants? Are counterfeit ExampleCo pants better than real ExampleCo pants that failed some part of QA process?
Frankly a lot of the argumentation as to how recycling opens up the doors to destroying the value of ExampleCo seems specious, in that it seems like it would not damage ExampleCo any more than it can currently be damaged by breaches of contract where destruction of inventory is concerned or other civil and criminal acts.
What stops ExampleCo from asking for a receipt and limiting replacements only to legitimate channels? Or why is ExampleCo directly dealing with the consumer, and not Macys or Goodwill?
I suspect this will need to be a cultural change. If ExampleCo does it but not RandomCo, of course your reputation will suffer. But if the law is for all of EU, it gives everyone an equal footing.
Especially since EU laws are announced 5-10 years in advance, manufacturers have time to actually design this. For example they could make easily removable labels.
No, because even if they're not sold as new (which as others have commented is often not the case), they're still competing with you for sales. Someone who would have paid full price for a new one instead gets a version with a slight issue at 25% off. That's fine if you're the one selling it at a discount, but here you've lost money on the production and are now losing even more money because you've lost a sale of a full price unit.
I think the spirit of that regulation is so you as the producer see this as an incentive to better manage production so there is no need to discard/burn 10% of everything.
Had this recently, bought a dehumidifier for a good price, marked as new - arrived and had obviously been opened and didn't work. Out of a desire to have a dehumidifier sooner than later I was about to open it up when I saw it already had been, so I opened a return instead and sent it back.
I can only assume it is worth it for the seller to sell untested goods as new, a good number must work long enough for the buyer to be happy.
I still remember Fry's Electronics and trying to find anything that hadn't been opened-returned-reshinkwrapped. Often it was impossible. Not sure why they had so many but eh whatever, it mostly worked fine.
It’s not hard to mark things as defective, liquidated, etc. so those eBay sellers can face fraud charges. We shouldn’t be sending stuff to landfills just to save a few pennies in permanent marker.
There are people in jail for this right now who presumably don’t find it funny, and in this scenario the volume would be high enough that prosecutors would definitely be interested.
And that is a very big assumption to make. Recycling is ripe with fraud simply because how much money is in the system.
The only way you can really be sure that "recycling" companies don't end up screwing you over is to do rough material separation on your own and dispose of the different material streams (paper packaging, manuals, plastics, PCBs) by different companies.
If I donate something on the premise that it's going to be used for some charitable cause and then it just ends up on some skuzzy listing on ebay, that would, at best, be deceitful. It's "good" insofar as the item is not being dumped in some landfill but it's not "good" insofar as it was obtained through deception.
Interesting. I wonder if that's one of the reasons Claude Code works so incredibly well for me with Clojure — I use clojure-mcp tools, which provide structured editing, and the model uses that to edit.
I really dislike this trend that unfortunately has become, well, a trend. And has followers. Namely, let's simplify to "reduce noise" and "not overwhelm users", because "the majority of users don't need…".
This is spreading like a plague: browser address bars are being trimmed down to nothing. Good luck figuring out which protocol you're using, or soon which website you are talking to. The TLS/SSL padlock is gone, so is the way to look into the site certificate (good luck doing that on recent Safari versions). Because users might be confused.
Well the users are not as dumb as you condescendingly make them out to be.
And if you really want to hide information, make it a config setting. Ask users if they want "dumbo mode" and see if they really do.
The TLS thing at least kind of makes sense. 99.9% of sites that the typical user visits will have a correctly configured and trusted certificate and communicate over TLS, so the browsers only show an indicator when that’s not the case. I think it’s a sensible evolution given how the internet has changed.
Again with the "99.9%" argument. This is always the beginning of a path towards dumbing things down. "99% of users…, 99% of sites…, in 99% of cases…" — this is always how these things begin.
Also, was the padlock really such a problem? Did it really have to be removed? If not, perhaps another easily accessible way to access this data could be invented. Like, I don't know, a menu item perhaps?
In chrome on macOS, the information is still there. It’s right where it used to be, to the left of the url. But quickly glancing at safari on Mac and phone I wasn’t able to find the information at all, which, yeah, I disagree with that decision.
Both browsers show “not secure” pretty prominently for non-TLS sites, and very loudly complain about sites with untrusted certificates, so the absence of either of those things signals a trusted cert, which is now the most common case by a very wide margin for me.
> I've found it tough to talk about being a solo bootstrapper though. People don't seem all that interested in it [...]
I think you've hit the nail on the head (solo bootstrapper here): People are not interested because A) it's not about them, it's about you, B) it sounds somewhat scary, C) it sounds completely detached from their reality of corporate jobs, and finally D) it's scary because your life might be "better" than theirs.
I don't tell people about my work anymore, and almost nobody ever asks, except for other entrepreneurs/bootstrappers.
As a European: nice, but why is it so BIG? How is that monster called "mid-size"? Why would one want to haul so many tons of extra metal around just to transport one's behind?
As a European (dutch), why are our roads so small, that normal sized cars look like "monsters". I have often thought, that Europe will have a problem in the future with roads, as they are just too small, and expanding and making them more safe, is unlikely to ever happen and often times impossible. Not everyone can get by with a small little hatchback, some of us need a big pickup (I own a building company). And for the people that do not need it from a commercial point of view, have you ever considered that people have hobbies and some hobbies needs a fair amount of space in a car? Or families with multiple kids doing sport need the space for all the gear?
I am worried that in the future, more and more european cities will just address the problem with a disguised "we are making the cities car free, and thus greener and safer". What that means for the average citizen out there is, that any building related work, will just become more expensive, as people will just charge more to get over the hassle of getting into the cities then.
I'm glad the roads are small. Smaller roads cause slower driving (well researched). As for the cities, it is unsustainable to use cars as the primary mode of transportation within cities. We do want to make cities greener and largely car-free, because cars for individuals simply do not make any sense in a city. We still need roads for deliveries and occasional transportation of heavy or large goods, but transporting yourself within a city should rarely be done in a car. See Tokyo for an example of a large metropolis which functions well and which would completely break down if everybody tried to use a car to get somewhere.
I grew up in a family of 5, albeit a decade after my siblings.
When I visited London with my parents, we went by train. When I was in the cub scouts, one of my memories was a group trip by train. When I went to middle school (years 4-6), it was easy enough for me to walk alone at the end, though mum did go with me at the start; when I went to secondary school (7-11) there was a bus, though eventually I found I liked the (3 mile!) walk.
Today, I find that my local bus route within Berlin to a nearby mall takes me past 2 schools, and at certain times of day the bus will fill with kids and adult supervisors. Sometimes I see people taking Kinderwagen on the bus.
This argument does not work when society is build towards roads and using them. I live in the Netherlands in a village, and not using a car is impossible with a few kids. The city is different.
Can and want to or being efficient are different things. I "can" travel around in a city using public transport with 3 kids and all their sporting equipment, do I want to, no. Would any sane person want to? No.
see, this is the narrow minded view of so many europeans. Well just go to a closer sports club....is not an answer to the problem that thousands of people experience with small cars, and small roads.
Many more thousands have no issues with small cars or going to a closer sports club.
If the roads in cities are wide enough in cities for literal trucks, then they're wide enough for your car. Widening roads and making cars bigger makes pretty much everyone less safe.
Don't get me wrong, you're free to live in the boonies and drive 400km to your sports club, but don't call me narrow minded because I can load up 5 people in my VW passat and drive 500km for a 10 day vacation, or because I prefer not to get bulldozed by a car with a higher hood than me while walking to my local sports club.
That’s a bit of a strawman argument. Most journeys don’t consist of three children and all their sporting equipment.
As a practical example, in the UK, on average a young g child lives 1.7miles away from their school.
That is an easily walkable distance for most children, yet lots of parents choose to drive it because they feel the streets aren’t safe to walk on in rush hour.
If by redesigning streets to make active travel more appealing, you could reduce the number of cars on the school run by 10%; it would improve the traffic situation for the ones who still need to drive. Win-win
Some people need more space, but the road problem is something that can't be retrofitted without demolishing buildings.
As a Dutch person, surely you've seen that Amsterdam decided that the city's car problem in the 70s was unfixable and decided to switch to cycling. The building and delivery problem is real, but I don't think even a 10 euro/day charge for work vehicles would register given how expensive building work is already.
Land in cities is very expensive. Why should vehicles get to use more of it for free?
As a European, I’ve been gently looking forward to Rivian’s R3 for years now. I like the design and it looks much more like a machine that will suit Europe.
>As a European: nice, but why is it so BIG? How is that monster called "mid-size"?
Because it's a nominal size more than a descriptive one. Midsize is the second biggest size with only "full size" stuff being bigger.
It made more sense 30-40yr ago when people who remembered when the domestic auto makers mostly only made a full-size, a midsize and a compact car were still alive and of prime car buying age.
The R2 isn't even really a mid-size SUV. It is closer to a RAV4, which is considered a "compact SUV" or "crossover" [1]. Mid-size SUVs like the Honda Pilot tend to be even larger.
Because it's the middle size between the two reasonable car sizes that are being made today: gigantic and fucking enormous.
If you aren't buying at least the gigantic car, then you don't care about your kids safety and that's bad. How are you going to protect them from my gigantic SUV?
What? Walking?? No of course that's illegal! You want to navigate the street without a massive steel bubble? Are you nuts!
There are pros and cons to running the browser on your own machine
For example, with remote browsers you get to give your swarm of agents unlimited and always-on browsers that they can use concurrently without being bottlenecked by your device resources
I think we tend to default to thinking in terms of one agent and one browser scenarios because we anthropomorphize them a lot, but really there is no ceiling to how parallel these workflows can become once you unlock autonomous behavior
I appreciate that, but for the audience here on HN, I’m fairly certain we understand the trade offs or potentially have more compute resources available to us than you might expect the general user to have.
Offer up the locally hosted option and it’ll be more widely adopted by those who actually want to use it as opposed to tinker.
I know this may not fit into your “product vision”, however.
Congratulations, you did very well! And I mean it, as someone who has experience building hardware (also in China), you came out pretty much unscathed and did extremely well for a first timer. Good job!
As best as I can tell, there was less than 10 minutes from the last successful request I made and when the downtime was added to their status page - and I'm not particularly crazy with my usage or anything, the gap could have been less than that.
Honestly, that seems okay to me. Certainly better than what AWS usually does.
It appeared there like 5 minutes ago; it was down for at least 20 before that.
That's 20 minutes of millions of people visiting the status page, seeing green, and then spending that time resetting their context, looking at their system and network configs, etc.
It's not a huge deal, but for $200/month it'd be nice if, after the first two-thousand 500s went out (which I imagine is less than 10 seconds), the status page automatically went orange.
> I don't care if I sound old and salty when I say this: I miss phpBB
I'll one-up this: I miss USENET.
I never understood how anyone could like phpBB, compared to USENET news readers, it was a chaotic mess. But USENET, that was great for discussing things.
I remember using some forums, and there'd be pages and pages of idiots just replying "Wow, this is great, thanks OP!", or "Thanks from me too!". How the fuck do you think you're contributing rather than polluting?
And nowadays they can even create Github accounts and do this...
I first got on the Internet in 1991. The older students told me to lurk on Usenet and not post anything for a month or 2 to avoid getting flamed. I did and then I loved it. Once all the @aol.com people started showing up it went downhill. By 2000 it was so full of spam and garbage that I stopped going. I connected to a Usenet server last year for the first time in over 20 years and it was just full of junk.
Funny thing is, if we were to revive it now, it might end up as a pretty nice place, given that all the dumb crowds now have their 4chans, reddits, phpBBs, facebooks, instagrams, etc.
What I think they are forgetting in this silly stubbornness is that competition is really fierce, and just as they have gained appreciation from developers, they might very quickly lose it because of this sort of stupidity (for no good reason).
reply