It's not an analogy, I literally have neighbours that do this. It's annoying. And I don't even necessarily want them gone, I just want them to stop throwing garbage on my balcony.
But then people like you come up with dumb scenarios like this to excuse it.
DHH wants to deport entire groups REGARDLESS of whether they've done anything wrong. So either you shared this example while aware who you are defending, or you do not understand what your words imply.
> But then people like you come up with dumb scenarios like this to excuse it.
Yeah, it's really mean of me to point out that collective punishments for entire ethnic groups are wrong. What a dumb reaction to your excellent point!
You seem to be reading a lot of words that no one wrote, you just imagined.
> DHH wants to deport entire groups REGARDLESS of whether they've done anything wrong.
He literally doesn't. He just mentions removing the problem ones.
> Yeah, it's really mean of me to point out that collective punishments for entire ethnic groups are wrong
You're literally the only one who brought up collective punishment.
I just want my (real) neighbours to stop throwing garbage on my balcony, especially when my 4 year old son is out there playing. I never even mentioned their ethnicity, you're assuming they're foreign. Why do you assume that?
Continuing the analogy: the new landlord started evicting tenants who are dumping their trash and there are other tenants protesting against those evictions and are defending the trash dumpers and will call you a Nazi for not wanting trash dumped on you.
Nope, you don't get to dismiss the detail that DHH wants to deport people regardless of whether they've committed crimes. Let's fix that in your analogy:
"The new landlord started evicting tenants of the same ethnicity as those who are dumping their trash and there are other tenants protesting against those evictions and are defending the trash dumpers and will call you a Nazi for wanting the entire ethnic group to get evicted."
Funny that you happened to miss that small detail!
Why, because I pointed out that your "continued" analogy fundamentally misrepresents the situation?
IMO it is much more weaselly to push your agenda through deliberately manipulative comments that mislead the reader into viewing entire ethnic groups as guilty of crimes against them. But what other choice do you have, given that the average person considers collective punishments of entire ethnic groups to be abhorrent?
My analogy was scoped as far as I intended it to be and accusing me of misrepresenting the situation makes you a weasel. People in the US are literally protesting criminals, including sex offenders who raped children, from being deported out of the country. That is a fact.
I feel obligated to point out the weaselly nature of this comment:
> People in the US are literally protesting criminals, including sex offenders who raped children, from being deported out of the country. That is a fact.
People are protesting because of all the deliberately cruel and unjust punishments that the US government has been gleefully handing out to people who were/are proven innocent, up to sending innocent people to foreign prisons specifically chosen for high mortality rates and then claiming people sent there are irretrievable, all while the government literally keeps being caught fabricating evidence over and over.
What makes this so weaselly is that under these conditions where many innocent are presented as criminals, it's literally not possible to protest for every innocent person while excluding every guilty person. Under an unjust and cruel government, the protesters you dislike include many people who truly believe in "innocent until proven guilty", or who simply consider "innocent people receiving unnecessarily cruel punishments" to be worse than "guilty people escaping unnecessarily cruel punishments".
I can tell the weasel comment really got under your skin, likely because you know deep down there is truth to it. There were numerous instances last year of protestors aiding and defending illegal immigrants from ICE that they specifically knew were convicted child rapists.
"many innocent are presented as criminals" being illegally in the country is a crime. End of story. They were (and still are) giving people free tickets home and cash bonuses to leave the country on their own terms and self-deport. No country is obligated to host illegal immigrants.
If anyone should read this far, consider that this person has no issues with misdemeanors sometimes being punished with death. Then consider that we know of numerous cases where legal immigrants, completely innocent of any crimes or misdemeanors, were deported.
Even if you believe in all they say, one day it could be you.
This doesn't concern me, but how do you go from "inferior product" to "less secure" and "let me contact your employer"?
There are other secure password managers out there, including open-source alternatives, which can be considered to be inferior due to having fewer features or a worse UI.
On a side note, while I'm sure some people only make decisions based on technical reasons, most don't. Not saying if it's right/wrong or better/worse, but that's how most humans work.
No no no, you are dodging the question. My question could not have been more clear but you are trying to side step it: "You would willingly and intentionally chose a less secure password manager and put your company at risk?"? Yes or no?
What company do you work for that is okay with that? To let your own personal politics compromise their security posture?
Slow down mate, you're not replying to the same user :-)
You asked them the following:
> Would you chose a product inferior to 1password if it better aligned with your politics?
Nowhere in your question you mentioned security, but your conclusion was that they would pick a less secure option and that their employer should be made aware. Maybe not intentionally, but looks like you're trying to win the argument with some word twisting and a 'gotcha'? But maybe that's just my limited English.
Anyway, I'm just pointing out that "inferior" doesn't mean "less secure" and that most people don't only choose things based on technical merits alone (I'd be surprised if you did). With this clarified... I will now leave the thread. Have a nice day!
That wasn't my "conclusion", that was my question to them. There was no "gotcha" here, only asking OP to clarify their position on if they would let politics influence their decision making to the point of undermining their company's security posture.
That "You would willingly and intentionally chose a less secure [...]" did sound like you assuming they would do it, but I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. My bad.
By the way, if you don't consider politics when making these decisions, then I'm not sure if you're doing a very good job either. Your employer may lose customers as result, you may end up without access to the tools or having to move again due to new laws, etc. Politics are always there.
Trump won the popular vote while running a platform of mass deportations. It's just as likely to cut the other way, which goes back to my original point that this type of "woke outrage" is played out and no longer effective.
That will depend a lot on the user/customer base you have. I doubt your business will continue as normal if you support those same ideas publicly and many of your clients are likely to be targeted, for example. The same would happen if you support complete opposite ideas and most of your clients think anyone that doesn't look like them should be deported. If there's a mix, well, you know you're going to piss off some of them.
You always need to be aware of who you're dealing with. This was true 100 years ago, still is today, and I doubt it will ever change.
Totally fair question. If you only want one agent to sanity-check one doc change, a skill/prompt is probably enough.
We actually aren’t rebuilding a harness here, it’s Pi with several LLM options to select from. The reason this is a project is that the useful workflow is more like a docs test suite: run realistic user tasks across multiple models, isolate each run in a greenfield sandbox, keep the transcripts/results, and make failures reproducible in CI.
You could ask an existing coding agent to spawn subagents for every task/model pair, but once that matrix grows, running hundreds of subagents on your computer gets messy. It’s also the wrong isolation boundary: for docs testing, you usually want the agent to start from a clean environment with access only to the docs/product surface you’re testing, not your whole working tree or local setup.
I'm not defending them or this behaviour but it sounds to me like they may think the message/threat this sends to silence future criticism from other people, outweighs the immediate sum.
(Internally I'm sure they could probably phrase it some other less negative way such as chance of people confusing the brand as still owned by them, etc) association
One of the technical things I don't really understand, is that it is not that hard to have an agent use tmux/etc to type into Claude code directly if you really want to? Like using tmux vs Claude -p are effectively the same aren't they?
Like, I understand the way they are subsidizing or whatever but on a technical level, I don't see how this makes any meaningful difference?
Am I missing something? Is this more about policy than the specific way it is invoked?
There is no difference between claude -p and typing into their "harness" in tmux. They want to make you pay for API which is subsidizing these plans.
They say they want to do it due to their percieved misuse(via automation) of `claude -p`, this I find laughable because they can always rate limit based on how fast a human types/STT's into a text box. Heck, they could provide TUI based extensions(something you vibe code in a few days today) to get better observability and DX for harness use, I would not mind using `claude` CLI directly, but they wont.
Forcing people to using their garbage harness — 0 observability, no extensibility and poor DX — is a showcase of how this fiasco is playing out: They refuse to improve their CLI and want to push everyone to use their API with multiple poorly rolled out policies.
I think for kids in particular, it's important to remember that the educational discount brings it down to US 500.
That's not exactly nothing but that's a pretty reasonable amount for a non-crap laptop.
I certainly do not want to try to talk you into this particular phone – but just in the general case so you know, it's pretty easy to get physical Sims that you can download an eSIM onto.
Yeah but usually you need to use an app to upload the eSIM to the SIM card. And that app runs on a certain OS. Whether they run on SFOS, I do not know. It is worth finding out, if you can afford the time for the research.
I don't know much about how windows software is packaged, but I find that a solid majority of desktop software I use is in flatpack and server software in OCI images
I am not the OP, but I am somebody who decides what software we use org-wide in a company, and this sort of thing matters to me.
reply