Also a choice the local government can make! I don't know about this specific case but I suspect we'll see local governments get more sophisticated when negotiating with tech companies.
That was my immediate impression too! It feels like it's all AI maximalists who seem to have a need to filter their every interaction through an LLM. And the result looks and reads just like Moltbook.
Yeah and the employee who generated an AI response to the AI-generated bug report, is Jared Sumner who is the founder of Bun which was acquired by Anthropic. Pretty sad state of affairs all around.
It feels (nobody can prove it) that all user-facing applications are fully vibe-coded and no internal developers have any idea how they work, so they just keep redirecting user questions to Claude to answer on behalf of them. That's why they are dealing with regressions and downtimes every few releases as it's the usual pattern with vibe coding that bug keep resurfacing.
This should be the top comment. The OP misunderstands the change and has their LLM write an expose. The company responds with a well-reasoned explanation that it would actually cost MORE money if there was a global 1h default for ALL prompts. It gets downvoted and the pitchforks stay out because…I presume the words like “cache read likelihood” sounds like made up fluff to the audience, rather than an actual explanation?
It only potentially saves money for people on API pricing, it exhausts tokens faster with no benefit for users on the Claude Code subscription. Those users had their cache TTL reduced from 1 hour to 5 minutes and are saving no money because they were not paying based on the cache time in the first place.
Because it is made up fluff for this audience. There is a wall of data and evidence + anecdotes from many people pointing to the exact problem here and giving concrete examples of how this absolutely does cost more.
And an admittedly uncharitable TLDR on the response is: "yeah... but most users just ask one thing and barely use the product so they never need the cache. Also trust me bro".
Which sure, fine. I'm willing to bet is technically true. I'd also bet those users never previously came close to hitting their session limits given their usage because their usage is so low. But now people who were previously considered low to moderate users are hitting limits within minutes.
They may as well have just said "we've looked at the data and we're happy with this change because it's a performance improvement for people we make the most margin on. Sucks to be you".
They changed the terms going forward so you’re changing your behavior going forward? Nobody but the psychos you’re making up would think you’re out of line here. They’re not required to offer the same product forever and you’re not required to pay forever.
If you are not yet in Oracle's clutches you have to be extremely naive or shortsighted to be using Oracle cloud. Obviously the low prices are because they have a shit product and shit reputation, and the moment they think they captured large enough audience they are going to hike them
Yup. They're not offering those prices out of generosity. They're offering them because that's the most they can charge big players who understand what it means to buy from Oracle.
> Recently, only 36% of suspicious activity reports from US companies originated from the surveillance of private messages anyway.
I don't have many opinions on this but this sort of lazy logic would make me nervous. 36% is not a small number and that's before the folks doing this activity find out that private message is less patrolled.
"Recently, only 36% of violent crime happened in broad daylight in front of a police station" would be a pretty wild statistic. Even a fraction of the reports being positives would be surprising.
Even if you could fix egregious cases like directly sharing location, I'm pretty sure any access to the internet could be compromised via clever use of data brokers.
I think most computer users dislike this but I see a ton of normal folks do this, they don't have the same conceptual boundaries folks on this site do (myself included).
Yeah, but is that a good thing? I think the lack of those conceptual boundaries are exactly why computers are so difficult to learn for some people. Access to web services, and the services themselves, still aren’t reliable enough to support this idea of a completely transparent computer experience where you don’t need to know what machine a file is on.
This isn't incompatible with the agent placing the purchase. I already let Claude Code do _most_ of what it wants but make it ask permission before sending a message on Slack. An LLM having the capability to do X is not incompatible with it being deterministically forced to seek permission to do X.
If a developer builds in a way such that the demand for street parking outstrips supply, the street parking still has a cost, that cost is just expressed in time to find a spot, not dollars like you're suggesting. People unwilling to pay that time cost will find paid lots or not have a car (which is basically the dynamic in my building: people either pay $450 a month for a spot or they spend 10-15 minutes looking for a free street spot).
In practice, of course, existing residents feel entitled to "their" street parking and get mad when a new building with new people contending for those spots is built but there's no logical reason to preference residents who have previously lived there. This is where politics rears its head though.
I completely agree with your comment, but would also like to add that many cities have restricted or stopped permitting the construction of above-surface parkades, further distorting the market.
This is correct which will incentivize the constructions of private lots etc (assuming the people you mentioned value their time more than the $ those lots cost). I don't see any reason you can't trust markets to address the supply of a commodity product.
Exactly, it's not like a Target going up in an area with no parking minimums is going to be like "great our massive big box store won't need any parking!" They're just going to be incentivized to build enough parking to fill their store to levels they expect based on the massive amount of data they have, and not just some gut-feeling BS from the 60s in the parking minimums regulations "department store - 20 spots per 100sqft" or some bullshit.
This is a choice the local government can make. You can read Loudon County's (us-east-1 + everything else) explaining what it does with the data center revenue it gets https://www.loudoun.gov/6188/Data-Centers-in-Loudoun-County.
> it increases electricity costs for the region
Also a choice the local government can make! I don't know about this specific case but I suspect we'll see local governments get more sophisticated when negotiating with tech companies.
reply