They can say "sorry Palantir, we will only sign a contract with you if you commit not to use Claude to provide services" and then Palantir is free to decide if they want to accept the terms of the contract or not. This is how business works.
That would be illegal and ripe for corruption. It would also require the DoD to renegotiate the thousands of existing defense contract it has outstanding.
That’s the entire reason this law exists, because what you’re suggesting is impractical. The department has to confidentially document its rationale for marking a company as a supply chain risk. It’s in the confidential record of this very court case. That’s the legal way to do this.
Again, did you read the order? The judge's order explicitly said this would be legal and cites the law permitting it, then goes on to explain why this action did not satisfy it:
> Covered procurement actions include “[t]he decision to withhold consent for a contractor to subcontract with a particular source or to direct a contractor . . . to exclude a particular source from consideration for a subcontract.” 10 U.S.C. § 3252(d)(2)(C).
Covered procurement actions are the things the Secretary can do after making a supply chain risk designation under 3252. The designation is a prerequisite. You can’t direct a contractor to exclude a subcontractor under (d)(2)(C) without first going through the 3252 determination process.
You’re literally posting evidence for why this is the only legal avenue for DoD. Yes, I’ve read everything on courtlistener. I trust you have as well, but did you understand any of it?!
Yes, it turns out our laws make it hard for the government to do a lot of things because making it easy for them to do things leads to some deeply authoritarian bullshit.
What a beautiful/horrifying inversion of logic. The government does it the legal way, through an existing law, and you’re short circuiting and pattern matching to “the government is trying to work around the law”.
The DoD is not trying to sneak its way out of behaving legally. On the contrary, they’re doing it the legal way and you’re suggesting that they could just do it the illegal way.
Again, you of undue certainty: the government attempted this potentially legal avenue, and it was adjudicated as impermissible. Meaning what they tried didn't work. Why are you acting like no one else here understands what has happened? Probability dictates that you are almost certainly not the smartest person in the room.
It wasn’t “adjudicated as impermissible”. You’re misunderstanding what a preliminary injunction represents. It’s right there in the name: preliminary. It’s preliminary because it precedes the actual real adjudication.
> Why are you acting like no one else here understands what has happened?
Because you clearly don’t? Because nobody who has a remote understanding of the legal system would be stupid enough to suggest that a San Francisco district court judge preliminary injunction decision would carry enough weight to dictate DoD procurement during an active hot war.
The DOD is labeling a domestic company a supply chain risk - label generally reserved for hostile foreign powers and their cooperators - because that domestic company didn't agree to its contract terms.
Judge Lin's order finds that it do so specifically to harm that company, without due process and without the remedies Congress specifically requested be used when it drafted the law. The DOD was, in essence, using a law illegally.
The version of events you present does not seem to be tethered to reality.
Did you read the order? It directly addresses your comment:
> More importantly, as discussed above, no one is entitled to conduct business with the Federal Government, see Perkins, 310 U.S. at 127, and irrespective of the challenged actions, DoW and other federal agencies are free to terminate its contracts and agreements with Anthropic, as Anthropic readily admits.
This entire event came about because Anthropic raised concerns with Palantir and the Department around how Palantir used Claude when the Pentagon used Palantir in the Maduro raids.
The pentagon can terminate its direct contract with Anthropic but it does nothing to address the risk that Anthropic poses to the reliability of Palantir’s services, which are (at this point) critical to the way that the Department operates.
People keep repeating this lie and I’m sick of it. The direct usage of Claude by the pentagon is not what they’re trying to address, it’s the usage of Claude by Palantir that they’re trying to address. And this is the legal way for them to do that.
Again, for the third time in this thread, they MAY NOT ask Palantir off the record to just not use Anthropic. This would be extremely illegal and would give Anthropic standing to sue to the government.
Why are you absolutely convinced the government requesting a contractor (Palantir) no longer use a technology they've determined to be unsuitable for their needs would be "extremely illegal", yet demanding every single company engaged in government contracts can no longer use Anthropic for any use whatsoever is totally fine?
I cannot follow the logic there at all. It's like being concerned that asking your neighbor to move their car would be too rude so your solution is to bulldoze their entire driveway. A federal judge evidently disagrees with your legal theory here so perhaps you're off the mark (in fact they specifically call out that the DoD failed to attempt less drastic remedies in violation of the law behind the designation):
Defendants’ designation of Anthropic as a “supply chain risk” is likely both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The Department of War provides no legitimate basis to infer from Anthropic’s forthright insistence on usage restrictions that it might become a saboteur.
There are other serious procedural problems with the government’s actions. Anthropic had no notice or opportunity to respond, which likely violated its due process rights. And the Department of War flouted procedural safeguards required by Congress before entering the supply chain risk designation, including that it consider less intrusive measures.
> Why are you absolutely convinced the government requesting a contractor (Palantir) no longer use a technology they've determined to be unsuitable for their needs would be "extremely illegal", yet demanding every single company engaged in government contracts can no longer use Anthropic for any use whatsoever is totally fine?
Because that’s what the law is! Because 1) 3252 gives them a mechanism to exclude a certain vendor from their supply chain broadly, and 2) singling-out a specific vendor for any other reason (favoritism, corruption, etc.) is not legally permissible under any other law.
You can argue that the law doesn’t make sense, but you can’t argue that the law is not the law?
I don't understand how to square your story about what motivated the government against what actually happened. This is the statement that the President of the United States made when announcing that Anthropic would be cut off:
> THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL NEVER ALLOW
A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY TO DICTATE HOW
OUR GREAT MILITARY FIGHTS AND WINS WARS! That
decision belongs to YOUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF and the
tremendous leaders I appoint to run our Military.
The Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a DISASTROUS
MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War, and
force them to obey their Terms of Service instead of our
Constitution. Their selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at
risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in
JEOPARDY.
> Therefore, I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United
States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of
Anthropic’s technology. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and
will not do business with them again! There will be a Six Month
phase out period for Agencies like the Department of War who are
using Anthropic’s products, at various levels. Anthropic better get
their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I
will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with
major civil and criminal consequences to follow.
> WE will decide the fate of our Country — NOT some out-of-control,
Radical Left AI company run by people who have no idea what the
real World is all about. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Perhaps you've not seen this statement before; there are a number of people who find it inconvenient that US policy is driven by insane social media rants, and prefer to make up more sensible rationales for the same policies. But there's no part of the actual published announcement that discusses the relationship between Palantir and Anthropic.
That's correct. Input caching helps, but even then at e.g. 800k tokens with all of them cached, the API price is $0.50 * 0.8 = $0.40 per request, which adds up really fast. A "request" can be e.g. a single tool call response, so you can easily end up making many $0.40 requests per minute.
It essentially depends on how many back-and-forth calls are required. If the model returns a request for multiple calls at once, then the reply can contain all responses and you only pay once.
If the model requests tool calls one-by-one (e.g. because it needs to see the response from the previous call before deciding on the next) then you have to pay for each back-and-forth.
If you look at popular coding harnesses, they all use careful prompting to try to encourage models to do the former as much as possible. For example opencode shouts "USING THE BATCH TOOL WILL MAKE THE USER HAPPY" [1] and even tells the model it did a good job when it uses it [2].
Not necessarily, take a look at ex OpenApi Responses resource, you can get multiple tool calls in one response and of course reply with multiple results.
An interesting thing to understand about Klarna and other buy-now-pay-later products is that a major part of their profit is the very high merchant fees they charge; retailers have to pay ~2-4x what they do for credit cards if they want to offer Klarna. 57% of Klarna's profit comes from these merchant fees compared to just 24% from loan interest [1].
It turns out it's worth it to merchants because when you're not paying now, you end up buying more than you would otherwise. Order sizes are ~15% higher [2]. Probably similar to how it hurts more to pay with cash than debit because it's so tangible.
I view it kinda similar to gambling apps with their endlessly optimized special offers designed to exploit the human monkey brain.
It's interesting psychology. You can do buy now, pay later + get it later without Klarna.
Just go to checkout, divide the sum by how many instalments you want to pay. Then open your banking app, setup a monthly transfer for that instalment to savings account, setup reminder in 3-6 months, then in 3-6 months just buy it.
Just few more steps, but for a human it's more attractive to get item now and feel the pain later, rather than the other way around.
That's how they make money.
If you do have money, it also means that you get item now and keep your money invested. If it’s the sort of BNPL that has no fees as long as you pay on time (not sure if Klarna does that, but I’ve seen a lot of those), technically it’s better to always use that.
Technically, yeah, but the overall benefit is pretty small. If you average $x/BNPL period, you're dealing with the cognitive/time overhead of buying everything with BNPL for the reward of whatever investment return you can get on $x. For an average household, that might be like a hundred bucks per year on average?
That's a big problem we have right now. It's just way too easy to buy shit you don't need with money you don't have. And the trap of paying over time completely warps your perception of how much you're spending. Even if you're responsible and make all the payments on time and don't pay a massive amount of interest.
You have to clear credit checks to get a credit card. Theres also generally a more involved application process (at least a little bit). The added barriers helped prevent the most financially unstable people from getting them.
There's plenty of problems with the system, but at least it's more difficult for people to get preyed on by credit card companies.
I see these companies like Klarna as not any better then payday loan places.
Predatory lending is a specific kind of targeted, exploitative lending. The form it takes is irrelevant (See below). And 2 wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do.
Having a credit card allowed me to cancel my non-savings account and not pay bank fees. I use my credit card to pay for everything and then pay the credit card from my savings account. They are so dumb lol.
> It turns out it's worth it to merchants because when you're not paying now, you end up buying more than you would otherwise.
This applies to credit cards too. And Klarna offers 6 week interest free loans (with partial payments along the way), not really that different from the 30 day loans from credit cards. So why is Klarna worth the extra merchant fees to the merchant?
Because the terms are way friendlier. Merchants get the money right away, and there is no risk of chargebacks. The article doesn't mention this specifically though the overall confusion is the same: Klarna is a slightly different form of credit card.
And yet, Klarna cannot figure out a way to make a decent profit, even with less than 40% of the employees (from the VC funded glory years) and dozens of acquisitions of actually profitable companies.
That link has pretty much all the info I was after. Pity it doesn't reach anywhere close to the theoretical speeds though, but hey at least it's better than 10GbE. :)
The main other problem is that the kernel doesn't register default signal handlers for signals like SIGTERM if the process is PID 1. So if your process doesn't register its own signal handlers, it's hard to kill (you have to use SIGKILL). I'm sure anyone who has used Docker a lot has run into containers that seem to just ignore signals -- this is the usual reason why.
> also, why can't the real pid1 do it? it sees all the processes after all.
How would the real PID 1 know if it _should_ reap the zombie? It's normal to have some zombie processes -- they're just processes whose exit statuses haven't been reaped yet. If you force-reaped a zombie you could break a program that just hasn't yet gotten around to checking the status of a subprocess it spawned.
This is a neat visualization. It makes me want to build something like this with actual screenshots (scraping from places like old forums, image hosting sites, etc.) rather than web page renderings.
One of my most prized possessions is my collection of personal screenshots -- I've managed to save basically every screenshot I've taken over the past ~20 years. It's very nostalgic to put them on shuffle and see how my desktop has changed over time, remember what random thing I was working on, etc.
Could be cool to extend the concept beyond one user.
I screenshot all new sites I visit. A UI interaction catches my attention, I screenshot.
My files system is 60% images. It's an habit.
As a self-taught software dev; it helped me hone good design skills and also off topic - I poke around a lot when I visit certain websites to see which technologies they are built with. Maybe it was me testing js scripts or verifying the API/Object properties of certain functions - the habit stuck haha.
Same here. It sounds like you even started when I did, ca. 2006. Starting from the blackberry era to my current pixel I've tried to do something similar with my cell phones, but I never usually program in that environment so I never got it off the ground. When LLMs got good a couple years ago getting a screenshot task up and running on my android was one of the first things I tried, but it's been a pain. Apparently Android has been putting in guards against that type of application for security/privacy reasons.
I have an Android, and use the free Tasker app to automatically take a screenshot of my active phone screen every 19 minutes. It takes only a few minutes to set up the Tasker script.
I have vague plans to do something with these one day. But until then, I hoard!
Did tasker do it for you? I tried about 10 yrs ago but with no success. I'll give it another go, thanks. I don't have any future plans for these but similar to OP I see them on a "pictures screensaver", sometimes on chromecast to a TV. I certainly regret not having done this in the 90s, particularly the BBS era, so that is justification enough for me to continue doing it.
I kind of wish I had that.
The closest thing I have to this is my Steam screenshot library, which is just memories of games - or social interactions. on games. I just checked and the oldest one is back from 2011. Prior to Steam they would have been on Xfire, but as that service died, all of those are lost.
Rarely any get added these days, and they're all on private. But it's fun to look back at which games I've played over the past ~14 years.
> Lina Khan and the US government in general blocked all kinds of tech acquisition and merger to the point that companies got creative and as a result many Windsurf employees got screwed. On the other hand, it's totally normal that a handful companies control our food supply chain.
Lina Khan's FTC also successfully sued to block the Kroger-Albertsons merger...
reply