I just wanted to say "thank you". I switched to Ghostty over a year ago and it's been working out great. It's now my default terminal. My favorite features are responsiveness and ease of splitting panes.
I prefer Linux as well just to get the same tools and architecture like you said. But at work everything corporate is configured for mac by default. So running Linux is a battle to having to keep up with VPN and other stuff they have.
All that Corporate IT stuff can work on Linux, we just have to start demanding Linux for them to put in the effort. Macs used to be in the same position, Corporate IT only knew how to manage Windows so that's what everyone got. Eventually the ability to use a Mac became enough of a recruitment draw that they had to make it work. The same thing can happen with Linux.
As one example, on Linux most developer tools don't obey the system proxy configuration, each tool has its own archaic configuration for that. So we end up with a lengthy list of how to configure each tool for our MITM proxy. Sure, MITM proxies aren't ideal anyway but we're unfortunately stuck with this.
Many security tools have a Linux version but omit the GUI component where users can do stuff like request exceptions. Another big thing for developers because they often need that.
WiFi certificate auto provisioning is missing from the MDM tool we use. So it has to be all scripted. On windows and Mac we just click a box to turn it on. And this works differently on different distros.
So yeah as someone who builds Linux management I can imagine some companies don't bother.
I guess it depends on the kind of "Linux" you want. Corporate IT will probably roll out RHEL or similar to the desktops, take away your root access, and install a virus scanner too.
I worked at a bring your own distro place before, ISO certified. I don’t exactly recall what we had to install for compliance but one of them was Clam AV. So it’s possible.
I recall Arch, Ubuntu, Debian and Fedora being used. Relatively small shop though, like 40 devs.
Ironically we were contracting with ASML at the time and ended up having to work on Windows machines using Remote Desktop 99% of the time.
I take it as part of his act on film and in reality. He does it with a straight face and people are happily buying it and love him for it. Heck, I like him, too!
One can still enjoy the stories and not everything is scripted but that’s the fun puzzle to kind of figure out how much is staged and made up.
> But after hearing about the book there, I was really put off by some of the things he said and concluded that the book would be a hard pass for me.
What are some of those things? I am not trying to be snarky, I like Herzog and I am curious.
One thing to keep in mind is he views documentaries are fiction almost. They are not supposed to be taken in as pure information or facts. Treat it like you’d treat any movie.
You said you liked Grizzly Man. Well there you can tell the reason he put in the coroner in there and he told him to “act” and the extra long pauses after the scenes are there to add awkwardness. It should be obvious what is going on.
In the sense that nothing is truly a "proper" hard security barrier outside of maybe airgapping, sure. But containerization is typically a trusted security measure.
> these laws cannot be used to compel a business into expressing speech they do not agree with
I don’t think they are preventing them. You can still buy some Anthropic. Heck, maybe you’re now doubly motivated to buy some out of spite. What Uncle Sam is saying is he doesn’t want anything to do with it. But Anthropic can produce whatever and others can buy it.
In their view just like businesses cannot be compelled so are the customers, they can’t be compelled to buy.
If they're designated a "supply chain risk", then any company that does any business with the military cannot be a customer. That includes basically all the largest companies, many of which have already adopted Claude. So the Pentagon is threatening Anthropic with terminating most of their private enterprise revenue and basically ruining their business model.
That's a little different than just denying someone government contracts.
> If they're designated a "supply chain risk", then any company that does any business with the military cannot be a customer.
Wrong.
Companies with military contracts cannot rely on Anthropic-supplied products and services for those contracts. (Yes, the cabinet member who misrepresents his own title and name of his department also publicly misrepresented the legal consequences of the designation. It's almost like ignoring the law and just making things up is a pattern with him and his boss.)
If you were a customer, what would you do? Keep paying for Claude but be extra careful about preventing all the people working on anything that might potentially be construed as related to the DoD work from using it, for fear of a retributive Hegseth? Or just use codex company-wide and not worry?
> The designation, typically reserved for foreign firms with ties to U.S. adversaries, could ban companies that work with the government from partnering with Anthropic.
> “You’re telling everyone else who supplies to the DOD you cannot use Anthropic’s models, while also saying that the DOD must use Anthropic’s models.”
I wouldn't put anything past this administration in terms of twisting rules and acting in bad faith to excerpt as much leverage as possible. They do it all the time. It's basically a government of patent trolls threatening everyone with meritless lawsuits that are nonetheless extremely effective.
If I was “one of the largest companies”, as was raised upthread as being impacted in all of their business, then I would be used to having many large public and private customers with different and conflicting contracting requirements and segregating support for those contracts, and for US defense contracts specifically, probably have a dedicated business unit for those that probably a subsidiary legal entity and which, in any case, is almost completely walled off in practice dedicate to defense contracts, provides all the shared services consumed by individual defense contracts independently of the parent corporation, and which adheres strictly to defense contracting rules and charges the compliance costs back to those defense contracts at a healthy profit, while having basically no impact on how the rest of the company does business.
You can imagine all sorts of hypothetical scenarios where Anthropic doesn't suffer too much. You can also imagine them losing a lot of big business. The point is that the DoD is sending a very clear signal: "if you don't do what we say, we will punish you until you do". If they didn't want to punish anthropic, they would simply go to a competitor like OAI. The fact that they're threatening several different potential revenge plots proves otherwise.
The govt has so many levers it could pull that it's technically not allowed to but that this administration has made very clear it loves doing. Things like spurious lawsuits prosecuted by a perpetually unconfirmed AG, or capriciously interfering in mergers or permitting processes. There's not a single norm too far for these guys. You're Dario Amodei. You would not be comforted by the idea that they're "not allowed" to punish you.
> If they're designated a "supply chain risk", then any company that does any business with the military cannot be a customer.
That's not how it works, they'll just have to show how they mitigated the "risk". That doesn't mean not doing business with Anthropic that may mean not using Anthropic for any deliverables or any projects involving the specific contracts.
> they'll just have to show how they mitigated the "risk"
If Hegseth is the one who decides whether the risk has been mitigated (he is), you think he's gonna be overcome by a sudden spirit of good faith and make impartial judgements? Or just do the thing that maximizes his leverage, gratifies his ego, and pleases his boss.
> Or just do the thing that maximizes his leverage, gratifies his ego, and pleases his boss.
It doesn't really work that way. Both parties want something from each other. If he is not "overcome by a sudden good faith" judgement all of the sudden no more Windows updates and it's RHEL Linux for everyone. Or if IBM says no, then what? Write your own OS? The system doesn't really work as a charity, it's corrupt but parties want something from each other. If he knows they need something and there is no other way to get the spirit of "good faith" will descend like lightning upon him. In this case he knew there is Google and OpenAI in play, and just like magic OpenAI made a deal pretty quickly.
It's normal to simply go to a competitor when one supplier isn't giving you what you want. It's not normal to try to ruin their business relationships with everyone else in retribution.
> of "a baker should not be forced to bake a wedding cake for a customer that they ideologically/morally disagree with."
> I guess the rules are different if the customer is the government?
Hmm, I don’t see the inconsistency? They are saying one baker is not to their liking and they are refusing to buy it and are returning the already bought cakes back. Also looks like they just found another baker not too long ago with a better “deal”.
"Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic,"
If this tweet is taken to the nth degree that'd effectively put Anthropic out of business since they have pretty significant Amazon[1] and Microsoft[2] cloud provider/funding relationships that would need to be nullified within 6 months.
Microsoft is probably not going to use Anthropic they went all in on OpenAI. Amazon gov stuff is already mostly separate. And in general it’s not clear what “supply chain” means for an LLM. Does it include code written by that LLM used on gov projects? What if it’s already written, rewrite it with OpenAI?
That's always been the loophole. But it involved an extra step so they are just trying to get rid of that one annoyance.
Here is an interesting thing to think about which country spies on Americans the most and how? Are there New Zealand commandos sneaking around the shores tapping cables? Moles working in the AT&T for the Canadian government? What happens if one of those individuals get caught, are they quietly allowed to leave, and if they commit any crimes do the charges get erased magically? Otherwise, if that doesn't happen there is danger they'll grab our spies in their countries in turn. Or they just blatantly pass lists around of who works for whom so they don't interfere with each other as that would preclude getting the data back through the loop to the NSA.
There is of course another loophole and that is private entities collecting data. The Constitution doesn't say anything about that, so the government figures it's fare game if they just pay a company to collect the data and then they query later. They didn't collect it so it's not "spying".
I imagine they're officially sent in some "diplomatic" capacity.
Anne Sacoolas (the woman who mowed down a British teenager with her car, but escaped because she had diplomatic immunity) turned out to be a senior CIA spy.
This is one thing I cannot fault Trump on. He's really succeeded in reducing European reliance on, subservience to, and respect for the USA. Now if we can stand on our own and not just swing further towards China instead, he'll have produced an absolute miracle
It's amusing to imagine spies from puny former British colonies snooping around the AT&T offices in trench coats and fedoras, but if this is the case, more likely they just share access to data from remote systems
It's a response to the "puny" part of your statement. Anzac special forces are renown for their brutal effectiveness (and frequent disregard for the rules of war[1])
I was sarcastically pointing out the embedded assumption in the humour of the comment I was replying to. If you really must make this case, because it sounds like you've been waiting for the chance, go and make it to GP who was using spies from Canada and New Zealand as figures of absurdity. Perhaps also explain to him why "spies" got switched for "forces" and then "special forces" appropo of nothing
> Realistically soldiers should head in the right compass direction and hope for the best. But then you (the player) shouldn't have a proper map of your own, either.
It would depend where and when. An army on their own territory might know the terrain. An army on enemy's territory would try to send scouts ahead as opposed to wondering randomly, too.
So at the army level it would almost work out like the they have "psychic" powers because they have scouts. At the individual units it would depend. But it would also be kind of annoying to play if the realism is increased too much. Like they wander into the woods and get stuck in a bog and die of hypothermia.
> It's so bizarre to me when North Americans proudly claim "Viking ancestry", rather than Scandinavian.
Where did you hear it? I am sure at least one out of hundreds of millions of Americans claimed it. But you know, we have people who think the earth is flat, as well. But by that token one can take any dumb thing someone from a large group said and sort of say “why do all X say this one dumb thing”
At least from my experience I only heard people claim Scandinavian ancestry. Or even more specifically a country like Norway or Sweden for example. Places like Minnesota or Wisconsin have a lot of that.
reply