There's no non-disparagement clause, so how about you left them use your name etc, and then you can come out in public and say those mean things and shame/embarrass them.

Sure, but what I'm slightly worried about is people easily resolving my username to my real name. Maybe I worry too much, dunno

That's fair, but I think it's also not unreasonable for Anthropic to want some sort of "compensation" for giving something away for free (even if it's just a paltry 6-months, which screams "sales tactic"). The terms around getting free stuff sometimes have things that aren't compatible with something about how we do things, and that's fine; we just don't get to take advantage of the free stuff.

Yes, I agree.

It's just that I value the right to reveal my identity on my own terms a lot higher than $1200 (using my username and project name is fine). For the offer to become enticing they would need it to be 5~10y instead of 6mo, or to simply remove the $realname part of the "publicity" section

I think it's the "always on" nature as opposed to the bandwidth. But maybe one begets the other.

I've thought a little bit about this, and I agree that always on is a big part of the problem. I think if I were the time lord, I'd aim for crippling wireless computer networking. I think I want everything we have computing and internet wise, if it's not available wirelessly, and thus always.

I agree that 32-bit is the golden age, but 64-bit is enterprise bloat. I personally would go for 1995 vs 2005, but I think 2005 was a lot better than 2015 in terms of interfaces.

I personally think that "peak computing" was around 2005. Maybe 2006.

Hope is not a plan, unfortunately, so if that's all we've got, I don't have much hope.

It's more like, here's 80 pages of too much information, just give me the API in a tight section here, with an architectural overview.

Usually these tools are used to compress, not fluff.

Best practices are always situation dependent.

Claude code will prompt you and explain to you what practice fits a situation. It might not do it perfectly, but the foundations are there.

Not anymore for software.

That is not accurate: software dev expenses can still be "written off": the write-off just must be spread over a number of years.

The limit should not be a fixed dollar amount, but rather relative to what it gets you. We want to allow people to earn the luxury of retirement at a young age, including healthcare costs (not included in the US), children's higher education, etc etc. $1m is nowhere near enough for that. So let's not try to figure that, say, $3.6m is the appropriate wealth cap for 2026. Let's speak in terms of orders of magnitudes. $1m is not enough. $10m is. Let's let the minimum wealth maximum be $10m.

> We want to allow people to earn the luxury of retirement at a young age, including healthcare costs (not included in the US), children's higher education, etc etc.

Do we want that only ever be available to a privileged few? The goal should be to eliminate privilege such that the inequities of capitalism apply fairly (or unfairly) to everyone. $1m, A level of income which the vast majority of people will never see in their lifetimes, is clearly sustainable.

If you consider that an unreasonable burden then perhaps we should restructure society to be less capitalist such that everyone has an opportunity for healthcare and education regardless of income, and can retire at a more reasonable age.

Sure, everyone should have access to healthcare and education regardless of income, I agree. This is separate from the amount of wealth a person should be allowed to accumulate. We can certainly lower this amount of wealth when society has improved to this degree, but I'm merely saying that, today, we can institute wealth caps within the current system that are broadly acceptable.

Oh yeah, of course you want early retirement so others can slave away to create the world you live in without doing anything. No. This is why equality is important. $200k is enough.

Yes, it is reasonable for some people not to have to work for survival. A person can earn non-work through age (retirement), vulnerability (disabled, children), lottery, or contribution. We want neither pure communism nor pure capitalism.

(I've seen other comments from you on here, you know you're being an unreasonable edgelord.)

I think it’s quite clear you want to place the limit at the the limit of your own achievable targets. Which sure, I’m on board with no taxes on people with the name Rene. Very self serving but not too different from yours.

I think you're wrong, it's quite clear that there are objective levels of wealth that are positive for people to aspire to, and levels of wealth that are beyond what any one person should be able to control. You can strawman all you like but it's just bad faith arguing at this point.

Yes, it just so happens that all these levels happen to be perfectly calibrated to one's own life. The Blub Paradox reigns supreme.

Billionaires are gross, millionaires are fine. You're committing the "slippery slope" fallacy in defense of excessive wealth inequality. (And if you genuinely believe what you're saying, recognize that your words are being taken as either disingenuous or foolish, and are having the opposite effect of promoting your cause).

Another thing I’ve thought about is having everyone wealthier than me have a 100% wealth tax. And it’s a pity that people consider caring about inequality disingenuous and foolish while people argue that some people should be millionaires while others are starving. Millionaires should not exist.

You think you're being clever in calling me out but you're just being a troll.

Call me names but it won’t change the facts.

This comic ("Is it worth the time?") is categorically incorrect, because it assumes a static system. Instead, when you make something take less time, you can do it more often. Sometimes, much more often. See: Jevon's Paradox. You would never have known that CI/CD was a useful strategy since you didn't optimize your build because you only did a full build when you released.