Note that some companies, like Amazon, purchased and ran the Claude on their own hardware. They didn't change the model parameters during the Claude Opus 4.6 karma.
If Anthropic continues to getting worse, try Amazon Kiro and other companies that run Claude on their own hardware.
It might be expensive and have a worse experience compared to Claude's code, but at least the model itself is the "original flavor."
> If your code is open source, your security team can scan it, your contributors can scan it, and independent researchers can scan it too.
Literally! If everyone can access the same system as Claude's Mythos, one solution is to have more people trying to identify your issue before the hackers have the chance to do it.
I still don't understand. Who gave ICE such power, and who is ordering them to do all this? To me, ICE's actions are similar to those of a private army.
The people. We voted for the people who gave the power, and we re-elected them. It’s really that simple. Is it “too late” now? maybe, but we had ~25 years since this all started post 911 to react, and chose not to.
> We voted for the people who gave the power, and we re-elected them.
That would be true if We The People were reliably informed when we showed up to cast our votes. However, in recent years, we have become detached from reality. "News media" companies pivoted away from keeping their audiences informed about things that mattered and instead focused on capturing audiences and keeping those audiences maximally engaged so that they could be sold to advertisers and otherwise exploited.
Now when people show up to the polls, they think they're voting to keep themselves safe from violent crimnals running rampant; they think they are voting to keep out the flood of strange outsiders coming to take their jobs and eat their family pets. But in reality they're voting for -- and getting -- something quite different.
> That would be true if We The People were reliably informed when we showed up to cast our votes.
Weren't the democrats criticised for campaigning on the message that voting for Trump was a significant risk to due process and democracy? I feel like every voter was aware of what happened on Jan 6th and still voted for him with some level of knowledge about that.
> I feel like every voter was aware of what happened on Jan 6th and still voted for him with some level of knowledge about that.
What a particular voter was “aware of” regarding Jan 6th and the events that caused it very much depended on where that person got their news. For example, one prominent network was found in court depositions to have knowingly reported complete BS about what Jan 6 was all about: “During pre-trial discovery, Fox News' internal communications were released, indicating that prominent hosts and top executives were aware the network was reporting false statements but continued doing so to retain viewers for financial reasons.”
That his vice president confirmed the result still should tell these people everything they needed to know. That at the very least the story peddled by sources like Fox was dubious and they should seek to corroborate that source with others. NPR is a reasonable source that all Americans know about, so I don't think its a reasonable excuse.
Do you believe that there is a large share of people who get their news from Fox News and also trust NPR? And vice versa?
More than ever before, people now live in news silos where they get only the news that engages their prior beliefs. And people who are in the Fox News silo have been told, repeatedly, that NPR is fake news from “far-left lunatic” Democrats. Do you remember all the air time Fox News gave to people arguing for the defunding of NPR? How much do you think a Fox News viewer is likely to trust NPR?
Think about it. If you are like the vast majority of people, almost everything you know about what is happening in the world, especially about the highest levels of government, is something you have been told from a source you trust. You are not a part of government policy decisions. You do not speak to people who are primary sources in those decisions. You know only what has been reported to you by third parties. Now imagine that you are getting those reports only from third parties that tell you something that is not true. How would you know that you are being misled?
I agree. People had already experienced one round of Trump before, and had every opportunity to see what he was planning for this term. There is no reasonable conclusion other than that they indeed wanted exactly what we got.
The US has very low voter turnout. Winning is mainly getting your voters to turn up, but usually apathy wins. Of course the media plays a huge part in this, but voter suppression is the US is fine art.
Personally I feel that non voters effectively voted for Trump, and they should own that as much as die hard MAGA types.
Don't disagree with you in principle but 2024 saw a very, very, very large turnout for US standards - the biggest one... Kamala's 75m+ votes basically are good enough (by very wide margin) to win any previous election (slimmer margin in 2020 than others but you get my point...)
thanks for the correction, I keep forgetting just how awful 2016-2020 years were that 81 million people came out to vote for a senile grandpa (exactly the point I was making, you need strong against case much more than anything else)
> 81 million people came out to vote for a senile grandpa
Yeah, people were getting fed up with the chaos. Biden owes his presidency to Donald Trump, for sure. He tried several times in years prior and could not win on the merits.
Weird, and why didn’t those people show up to vote for Kamala? How did Biden get more votes than Obama, but Trump won the popular vote four years later?
> why didn’t those people show up to vote for Kamala?
Enthusiasm gap. And not during COVID. 2020 was an interesting time as you may recall.
> How did Biden get more votes than Obama, but Trump won the popular vote four years later?
You will be less likely to fall prey to grifters if you look past absolute numbers and realize that the voting age population tends to increase about 10 million every four years. And with turnout generally abysmal, under 60% most times, there is a lot of room for variation.
His whole schtick seems to be getting voters to show up at the polls who otherwise don't bother to put forth the effort. I've heard it said that this was also Mamdani's trick in NYC (heck, maybe that explains why Trump is so smitten with Mamdani).
So GOP politicians do significantly better any time Trump is sharing the ballot with them. I won't be surprised if the 2026 midterms go very poorly for the GOP. And given that Trump won't ever be on a ballot again, I won't be surprised if his control over congressional GOP members starts to noticeably erode even before the midterms. They definitely know how the game works, and they are going to start looking for ways to keep their jobs.
Running against a President (especially one that is not on the ballot) is much easier than people think, all you have to do is pitch that while I may be terrible, your alternative is much, much, much worse which is exactly what the Trump campaign was all about.
It worked because a lot of people bought that story (and many continue to buy it evidenced by DJT's approval ratings among the GOP voters). The whole campaign basically had no platform other than your cookie-cutter "migrant crime", "economy bad" ...
It worked because as bad as the GOP platform was, the dems' strategy was just awful, and their tactical decision making was abysmal.
* focus on abortion, which is an important issue ... mostly to evangelicals
* focus on threats to democracy, which sounded shrill and got blown off
* no real message on the economy, which was widely perceived as floundering under Biden, and was very important to a lot of swing voters
On top of that, Trump's approval ratings on the economy were pretty good when he left office. People remembered that and thought he'd do better.
Then of course there's the whole "hey, let's not tell the senile old man that he basically promised to be a one-hit-wonder, and wait until the last moment to switch to his running mate instead".
In a way, it's impressive that the dems didn't lose by larger margins. Trump wasn't that popular, the dems were just that incompetent. I hope they pull their head out of their ass for 2028. But I'm not counting on it.
I don't disagree but I don't believe there was any way Democrats would have kept power in 2024. They were unable to sell any positive news about the economy (DJT does not seem to have learned this lesson and is doing same stupid thing as Dems did in 2024). The no real message on the economy was real but economy was doing great in post-COVID world especially compared to the rest of the world and there wasn't a reputable financial outlet that did not agree with this (Economist, FT, WSJ, Bloomberg...).
While I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said I do not believe there was a way for Democrats to beat DJT. His machine was just too good and no matter the candidate and no matter the message I don't believe it would have mattered.
Have you considered that you can be misinformed? Maybe you are in an echo chamber that makes it appear others are wrong. Maybe there are legitimate concerns regarding illegal immigrants. Maybe you should try to expand your understanding of the situation.
instead of "just asking questions", mayhaps you could answer them? what are you legitimate reasons regarding immigrants who lack documentation? do you have your documentation on you as all times, as a united states citizen?
Some are criminals, some bring problematic cultures, strain on services and take what is meant for citizens, taking low wage jobs, and they are exploited.
However, in recent years, we have become detached from reality. "News media" companies pivoted away from keeping their audiences informed about things that mattered and instead focused on capturing audiences and keeping those audiences maximally engaged so that they could be sold to advertisers and otherwise exploited.
This is true, but it is only one part of the picture. I feel journalism in general has stopped asking controversial questions and investigating. There is no more difficult interviews where they are, if need be, confrontational and try to get answers that mean anything, that deeply clarify an item or a stance. It's all become so docile, nobody goes digging deep into facts anymore, euphemism everywhere. For example: a couple of weeks ago I watched a Johnny Harris video re. America/fascism and he really managed - after spending most of the video on Hitler and Mussolini - to arrive at the conclusion that the US is trending towards an illiberal democracy while depicting Victor Orban as fascist. Orban called his vision for Hungary an illiberal democracy.
But his self-described quest to create a so-called illiberal democracy in...
Nobody ever voted for mass surveillance. There's no party you can vote for in the US that doesn't advocate for total mass surveillance by the federal government. Don't pretend this is a red/blue thing. The military-industrial complex is fully integrated with both parties in the US.
Maybe if the US had a sane voting system, but they don't. I'm of the opinion that their flawed voting system is a huge factor in why the US government is the way it is.
Unfortunately that is how it works. A vote for the green party is simply a vote not cast for D and favors R; and a vote for a libertarian is a vote not for R, so it benefits D.
A solution is Ranked Choice Voting where you can say, "Green, and if they don't win, D (or whatever)."
Fwiw, I vote my conscience, not to win. Not the best for my political positions maybe, but I hope to send a signal to others that maybe something other than R/D is one day possible. But, yeah, RCV would help with that conundrum.
While this is true, very often that is the impact of a third party vote in a federal election. See the election of one George W. Bush and the impact of Mr. Nader.
Trump recently posted a diatribe about ranked choice voting in Alaska (calling it "disastrous, and very fraudulent").
Do you know why the modern GOP hates ranked choice voting? Because they rely upon getting clown votes wasted on the Tulsi Gabbard, Jill Stein's and Kanye West's of the world as a way to get elected. They just need to entice just enough fool-vote drawers, knowing the cult will not sway an iota.
There's no mechanism for pressing politicians except threatening not to vote for them again, and politicians are exceptionally cowardly and avoid picking up hot potatoes that could incur criticism. I'm in a district with one of the safest seats in the country, and getting my representative to state a position on many issues is like getting blood out of a stone.
There's no formal mechanism of accountability for members of Congress. Representatives hold a few town halls a year where they might be subject to social shaming by their constituents, but there's no legal obligation to do so and even when they're publicly embarrassed they often dismiss public opposition as 'a few paid agitators' or the like.
This is doubly and triply true for complex policy issues which require a lot of explaining, making it virtually impossible to build grassroots support. So you just end up with a nonprofit industrial complex that needs to constantly raise funds for lobbying and publishes slates of endorsements at election time that relatively few people have the time or inclination to read.
The answer is to vote in the primaries. That's how you unseat a 'safe' seat. I'm not going to say its a good answer, because the primary system and the two party system in general are terrible, but its the best choice you have besides running yourself.
I wonder how the dynamic between members of Congress and their constituents would change if we had a larger Congress. Instead of the ~786k people per representative, having ~107k like the UK. Would it be feasible? Probably not. But Congress is way too small and it results in some poor incentives.
It also doesn't help that in situations like this, both major parties are moving in lock step. You cannot vote against something that both party stand for.
Terrance McKenna once said that the worst president was the one in power, regardless of when it is. It is because for the most part, they just keep building on the existing frame work, standing on the shoulders of those before them.
Now one could argue that Trump is doing the opposite this term, but depending on were you stand, this might not have been a great out come.
Congress gave them the power. They are federal law enforcement who actions were mainly restrained by desire of their leadership (US President) to keep their actions curtailed.
The answer to this is that Google gave ICE this power by complying instead of fighting the subpoena or notifying the subject of the subpoena, both of which they can do according to the ACLU [1].
Willing, optional compliance with the administration is the core problem here.
Probably Stephen Miller. Correct, he doesn't have the authority, correct, this is outside the scope of the org. Neither the republican controlled congress nor the republican controlled SCOTUS are interested in exercising their checks and balances though.
a) The kids in cages garnered significant press, public sympathy, and protest
b) I also lived in Austin during that time, and the scale and militarization of current ICE action is on another level to what it was in the early 10's
idk, i live in oakcliff in Dallas. Per google 20% of people in the area are undocumented. Elementary schools are around 50% undocumented and the area high schools around 30% if not higher. My son is in the second most selective magnet HS in DISD and half of his friend group is undocumented.
I haven't seen a single ICE raid in the 10 years i've lived in the area. I did see DHS do a raid on a house once but i've yet to even see ICE. I'm not saying they're not around but they certainly don't make their presence known in an area overflowing with undocumented immigrants. I keep waiting for the jack boots and armored vehicles to roll through and wholesale round everyone up like i read about but it seems business as usual all day every day in Oakcliff.
edit: Honestly, i think no one really cares about oakcliff anymore. Dallas PD does nothing about the constant gunfire at night or street racing. So it makes sense ICE is never alerted, i think the people who would alert ICE just don't bother. I'm not sure if that's good or bad.
c) despite appearances and the current state of fear, Trump's second-term ICE has deported merely a fraction (0.6m) achieved under Obama's ICE (3m+), so if it's on a different level, it's clearly a lower one. Movement vs action, perhaps.
Is this the same stat where turning a person away at the border counted as a deportation during the Obama years? I’ve found the changing methodology to make comparisons troublesome
I think what's weird is comparing them based on the zeitgeist, photos, video, and sensationalism instead of whatever numbers are at hand. The fear and the danger are rarely the same.
Whether you think we should look at per-year numbers or the overall numbers, I'd say that most people count total progress of a thing moreso than the velocity, or the prices of things instead of the spot inflation rate.
I always feel like I'm taking crazy pills when people say no one complained under Obama since I distinctly remember people complaining at the time (maybe it just didn't make it to less left-wing circles?). It's also pretty trivial to find contemporaneous ACLU articles on it with specific complaints.
The liberal media did an absolutely bang-up job covering up Obama's tyranny, and the conservative media wasn't about to start punishing Obama for threatening them with a good time. So nobody in the media talked about it, even though left-wing activists were shouting from the rooftops about the Deporter-in-Chief.
Obama might have even campaigned on some of these issues, but DNC insiders are experts at making big promises up front and walking them back[0]. Hell, I'm pretty sure Obama deported more people more often than Trump did, at least in his first term. And when people were suing ICE over COVID-era border closures, Biden staffers were privately wishing the activists on their side would lose.
Keep in mind, open borders is a libertarian policy, not a left-wing one. American lefties tend to also skew libertarian, but the "liberals" running the DNC are basically just Republicans with a liberal accent. The uniparty is real.
[0] I'm already seeing this with Mamdani and Queenslink. He is, at the very least, letting the shitty Queensway "let's cover this old railway up with politically untouchable greenspace to make the car-owning NIMBYs happy by stopping Queenslink" plan continue forward.
So firstly: no significant group in the US is advocating for "open borders", that term is just a strawman as used in modern politics.
Secondly: "open borders is a libertarian policy, not a left-wing one" doesn't really make sense. Saying a particular policy is inherently part of only a single ideology just isn't how ideologies work. Also, if you're looking for anti-statists who view people from all countries as equal and are for people being able to choose which government to be under then the ideology that best fits that is "anarchism". If you're using a definition where "anarchism" and "libertarianism" are essentially the same then you're using a definition where "libertarian" isn't particularly right wing (which makes contrasting it to "left wing" not make sense).
Oh, that's not true that there aren't folks in the US in favor of "open borders".
There are a lot of us left-libertarians who are in favor of humans having the same rights as capital, we are just easy to ignore because it's not a very big group. But hey, we actually do work instead of just bitching about it, so our impact on ICE is maybe a little outweighed compared to the average Harris-voter who spends their sundays at brunch instead of doing stuff.
I make use of the strawman-y American terms because it's the easiest way to avoid getting into long drawn-out arguments about what words mean[0]. So I interpret "open borders" to mean "any immigration policy that is permissive enough that an unqualified migrant with no criminal history can enter a country, apply for a job, and be hired without any additional bureaucratic formalities". Ellis Island, essentially.
"Left" and "Right" are also effectively unmoored from definition (unless you happened to be sitting on a particular side of the room in the Estates General of 1789), so I'm using the Political Compass's definition of those terms. It's fairly safe to say that there are enough commonalities in rhetoric between, say, Kropotkin (left-libertarian) and Lenin (left-authoritarian) that you can put them on one side of a two-dimensional plane and not get laughed out of the room. Likewise, on the right, Mussolini (right-authoritarian) and Rothbard (right-libertarian) didn't agree on much either, but they both wanted what power did exist to be invested in corporations explicitly empowered to put profit over people. You can also make a pan-authoritarian pairing between Stalin and Hitler[1] and a pan-libertarian pairing between Kropotkin and Rothbard, with about the same level of in-fighting on all four sides.
Yes, the Political Compass's definitions have Problems, but they are useful enough to make my point, which is that people whose ideology skews against state power also tend to oppose the state imposing restrictions on entering or exiting a country.
If you want the best argument against my point, it's that right-libertarians can't decide if immigration is a human right to be supported or a welfare program to be abolished. Their argument tends to be something like "Social Security or Ellis Island, pick one". This is a false dichotomy, of course[2], but that wasn't my point. My point was that the American people generally do not care about immigration beyond "we need to get these scary-sounding South American gangs off the streets". America has done a bang-up job of isolating their people from immigration bureaucracy in such a way that most people aren't even aware of how authoritarian the current system is. People talk about "moving to Canada" like it's something people can just unilaterally decide to do, and as if Canada's immigration system wasn't morally equivalent to a rock and a sticky note that said "YOUNG COLLEGE-EDUCATED CHINESE, FRENCH, AND BRAHMIN INDIANS ONLY, ALL OTHERS NEED NOT APPLY".
[1] Insert joke about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact here.
[2] In practice, the way the EU handled this concern was to let member states put a waiting period on social benefits to prevent migrants from shopping around for the best welfare program to use.
If someone does something to nth degree, it's bad. If someone does something to (n*10)th degree, are the sheeple really at fault for reacting? Do you not behave the same way in your own life?
You're making a mistaken thinking power is given. Quite often in the US government organizations 'just do', and it's the power of the executive, judicial, or legislative to stop them.
Unfortunately Trump is doing whatever he wants at this point and ignoring anyone that says otherwise.
Which immigration laws are they enforcing in this case? And are you also going to suggest that the Constitution does not protect foreign nationals inside the US?
The Constitution uses the following in regard to protest in the first amendment
Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It uses this same "right of the people" in the second amendment
... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In both cases, the right is restricted to "the people." Note in the first amendment, only the final bit about protests is restricted to "the people" the rest is generally protected whether it is "the people" or not.
Note in Heller and elsewhere it was determined "the people" are those who belong to the political class (which is a bit vague, refer to next sentence, but not same as voting class). Generally this is not those on non-immigrant visas or illegal aliens (though circuits are split on this). If you don't have the right to bear arms, clearly you are not "the people" since people by definition have the right to bear arms, which means you wouldn't have the right of "the people" to protest either, no? So it appears since they are not people, they don't have the right to assemble in protest, though they may have other first amendment rights since it's protest specifically that was narrowed to "the people" rather than many of the other parts of the first amendment which are worded without that narrowing.
For instance, speech without assembly isn't narrowed to just "the people." Perhaps this was done intentionally since allowing non-people to stage protests was seen as less desirable than merely allowing them to otherwise speak freely.
Note: Personally I do think non-immigrants are people, but trying to apply the same "people" two different ways with the exact same wording makes no sense. If they can't bear arms they necessarily are not "the people" and thus are not afforded the right to "assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
USA was founded well after the Pilgrims. I don't think anyone in 1776, or even in the Pilgrim days, was thinking a foreigner should have the right to vote for instance.
Most people in the US did not choose to become citizens until the mid 19th century. The process was much easier than naturalization today, though, presuming you were white and in some cases might be required to own property.
US also didn't have Jus soli citizenship until the whole civil war and slavery debacle. You had to go into a local court and show you lived in the US for a couple years, who would swear you in as a citizen. But most people didn't care about voting or holding office enough to bother.
> US also didn't have Jus soli citizenship until the whole civil war and slavery debacle.
Actually, my understanding is that the US did largely follow jus soli. What it wasn't was unconditional jus soli, but the principle was birth in the bounds of the US conferred citizenship except if positive law existed not conferring citizenship.
What are you saying, the US Constitution is bogus because people were racist in 1776? It's undergone amendments and clarifications by the Judicial branch. It's been consistently obvious that foreigners don't have the same rights as citizens here, and tourism or immigration law wouldn't really work otherwise.
You didn't answer my question, but here's what I'm saying:
> If you have to work your way round to "they are not people" for the law to be consistent, consider that it might be a bad law.
I disagree that the law (which has been changed, amended and clarified) has been 'consistently obvious', and I still maintain that the conclusion of 'immigrants aren't people' invalidates the law.
You could make this argument, but the Supreme Court does not seem to agree, they have consistently said that "the people" is basically everyone here. Even those unlawfully here.
That said, the second amendment does have some interpretation that allows for restrictions on temporary visa holders like the student that is the topic of this discussion. But it also has rulings that support it applying to illegal immigrants.
> they have consistently said that "the people" is basically everyone here.
This is absolutely false. DC v Heller cites that "the people" refers to members of the "political community."[] Not "basically everyone here." The interpretation of what "political community" means has been split in the circuits. One court in Illinois found it might include illegal immigrants (who have settled as immigrants) or non-immigrant visa holders that were illegally settling here. This is anomalous. Generally they've found the political community to be something approximating those with immigrant type visas, permanent residency, or citizenship -- barring some exceptions from those like felons.
Even if you dig up the most generous case in illinois (I've forgotten the name) which claims some illegal immigrants are "the people", which it has been awhile since I read it -- even they narrow the political community refered to by "the people" to people actually settling as part of the community and not just basically anyone inside the US in a way that would suggest it applies to tourists or student visa holders using their visa in the legal manner.
What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):
"Peaceably" is important. If you think the pro-Palestinian protests on campus are peaceful, try wearing a yarmulke and walking anywhere near them. Or anywhere on many campuses, on any day, protest on-going or not.
Search Google images for "yarmulke palestinian protest" and tell me there aren't many Jewish people fighting for a Free Palestine. Every pro-Palestine rally I've been to has had a contingent of Jewish groups in our midst. You'll only get hated on if you show or wave the Israeli flag.
There are videos of Jews getting harassed and attacked by "pro-Palestinians" all over the internet while they attempt to get to class. Jews have been arrested in the UK "for their own safety" for existing near a protest. Not to mention the rampant ZOG and other related bullshit.
Even if there are Jews at some of these protests (as opposed to random people wearing kippahs), all you're doing is whitewashing violence. Same as Candace Owens and MAGA.
> And are you also going to suggest that the Constitution does not protect foreign nationals inside the US?
I thought it was settled constitutional law that it doesn't? Moreover, during the war on terror, it was established that the president can freely order the murder of non Americans outside the US.
The courts, all the way to the top, have consistently interpreted the Constitution as a document that circumscribes the behavior of the government, not as a document that grants privileges to "the people" or a subset of that (e.g. citizens only).
Apparently they have the power to murder and kidnap American citizens too, or violate their rights if they happen to freely speak or assemble in ways they don't like.
Sometimes it's fine to be content with trivial things. Sometimes that's all you've got. It isn't wrong to be grateful and happy when small things happen for you. A lot of us should practice appreciating it more, in my opinion.
And frankly, the bigger things, the more substantial things; those are fewer and farther between. They're harder to populate a map like this with. They're certainly preferably in some ways, but realistically, it's not the primary stuff of surveys like this.
Haha, speaking of simple pleasures. One of my favourite experiences to have these days is reading these with my son.
Some of my top strips are the ones where Calvin and Susie Derkins are grown up and Calvin is having successive crises about everything she says or does.
I think they changed the quantification to save computer power for their new model. This might be why the benchmark scores look good, but the real world performance is much worse. I'm wondering if they're testing the model internally and didn't find anything wrong with the new parameter.
I canceled my subscription and switched to a codex, but it's not as good. I'm tired of Anthropic changing things all the time. I use Claude because it doesn't redirect you to a different model like OpenAI does. But now it seems like both companies are doing the same thing in different way.
These two basically do what you want, let Claude be the manager and Codex/Gemini be the worker. Many say that Coder-Codex-Gemini is easier to understand than CCG-Workflow, which has too many commands to start with.
All of them are made by Chinese dev. I know some people are hesitant when they see Chinese products, so I'll address that first. But I have tried all of them, and they have all been great.
If Anthropic continues to getting worse, try Amazon Kiro and other companies that run Claude on their own hardware.
It might be expensive and have a worse experience compared to Claude's code, but at least the model itself is the "original flavor."
These days, it's hard to ask for much.
reply