does "Superpowers" exist outside of the Claude ecosystem? I feel like I've become hooked on this workflow - honestly I could take or leave the models ... it's the workflows and the way that they essentially create tightly focused loops over multiple sessions that I've becoming fairly dependent on.
I burned though $50 on OpenRouter in three days, this is with selective model routing based on tasks/strict AGENTS.md. A Claude 20x sub running Sonnet 5/Opus 5 and light Fable usage gets me through the month. It wasn't even close even though I wish it were.
Agreed, it's not SOTA but I'm happy with the trade off. My preference is to use mostly local models and augment them with Deepseek. It's been a pretty great equilibrium.
The complicit parties of climate change are so wide you would probably have to try thousands and thousands of people across most of the developed world. The cohort is probably so large that it’s more a reflection of society generally than the malicious acts of a few.
> British military courts carried out proceedings against 1,085 persons
> About forty-five additional trials were held against an unknown number of
accused. [...] In all, French occupation courts passed 2,107 sentences [...]
> [I]n Poland alone 16,819 Germans were sentenced [...]
> In Czechoslovakia, about 16,000 German nationals received sentences. Exact figures are not available.
It strikes me that historically whenever one extremist side decides to pull the trigger and goes for a cult-of-personality power grab (because this is not a left/right exclusive thing); the really delusional stuff starts when those already in power trigger a vicious cycle of paranoia.
People know who were salivating at the idea of devaluing labor while cutting social welfare programs, creating a pool of cheap labor too desperate to negotiate; these people now feel safe openly showing contempt and cruelty.
Nonsense. Anyone who wants forced labor camps is a fascist. I don't care what they call themselves. Once you stop caring about wellbeing for everyone you stop being a leftist. (Which is your insinuation.)
Also, there is more than one political aisle. The left (who broadly want to redistribute wealth) is distinct from democrats (who are capitalists) is distinct from the various parts of the GOP.
The US Constitution, specifically the 13th amendment, allows:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall be duly convicted, shall exist within the United STates or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
So in fact, forced labor camps are totally legal and common in the United States. There are lots of private companies which operate these prison / factory systems and are quite profitable (unsurprisingly), such as NYSE:GEO.
All governments "redistribute wealth" friend, not just the left or right or up or down.
It all depends on which side of the bars you live on, amirite?
Do you think the left broadly supports prison labor or that carveout in the 13th Amendment? Personally I've never seen a leftist voice any feelings on them other than contempt.
You ain't disagreeing. Anyone who wants or engages in forced labor is fascist. Sounds like you found an example of that in the US. Yep. Many such cases.
Even then, I don't really understand the logic, because it seems like that doesn't take into account the risks and magnitude of the downside. The downside of losing a lot of money from lawsuits or even potentially going to jail is pretty huge, and I don't see how to make the expected value come out positive when any more money beyond "I can safely retire immediately" honestly wouldn't make my life significantly happier.
All this is moot of course because I'm weird and don't have any desire to make money from things I don't consider ethical even if I knew for sure I could get away with it, but I can at least understand other people not feeling constrained in that way (or not finding this particular thing unethical, since from a lot of these threads it's clear that the idea of "trade secret" as something legally protected is not universally popular). This crime in particular just doesn't seem like a smart one to do even for people who don't mind the idea of making money from it.
Some industries (e.g. law) are close knit, at the top level everyone knows everyone, you’d get blacklisted for pulling stuff like this.
But tech isn’t like that, there’s always a new startup and a new VC firm that don’t care that you ripped off every single previous person you worked with, stole trade secrets… maybe this time will be different
Not that I've done a ton of hiring, but no, that hasn't been common anywhere I've worked. The tech world is huge, it's easy to go somewhere else, outside of whatever bubble of people you've burned in the past, and start again.
When you’re in these circles there is pressure to earn even more money (which is part of the employee retention plan). There is always someone richer. There is always a property you would like to buy.
You need a lot of money to retire in a beach house in California and have your own small yacht and fly private. And buy concierge healthcare and get your kids into the top schools.
Sure, and when they do it for stuff where they're at risk of getting caught, it's confusing too. I'm not particularly motivated by money, which makes it pretty easy for me to not have any desire to take risks like breaking the law for money, but I can at least comprehend that for some people who are more motivated by money compared to other things, there might be some crimes where the risk/reward ratio ends up making it appealing. What I never understand is people doing crimes when the likelihood and magnitude of the risk are both so high compared to the actual upside if you manage to get away with it. I can't imagine they're making enough money from this to make it a worthwhile risk, so it's not clear where the cognitive dissonance is. Do they think that OpenAI is going to be so rich and powerful in the future that their gratitude will pay off even more in the long run? Are they way overconfident that they can pull it off without consequences? I can't even begin to wrap my head around any of the scenarios individually, much less have any insight into which one they bought into.
I am in the completely same boat as you and completely agree that you need to “give into it” more to get the most out of superpowers. I gain so much confidence out of the actual process and all of the adversarial reviews, re-reviews, refinement, etc.
Because it’s Jack Dorsey and that’s it. I agree it’s not novel or interesting. It’s frustrating for me particularly because I want some kind of widely decentralized network but something that actually has a chance to work, which Dorsey has the capability (financially, connections, etc) to make happen. Instead he decides to waste time on something that’s DOA.
This has been a story, age as old as time. How many times have startup founders been told "you're a feature" or "Google/Meta/etc can copy you so fast". Operators just need to stay vigilant of their value add, or they never really had a moat in the first place and were living on borrowed time anyway.
