“Please revert that last change you did”, referring to like a smaller change that had just been done

That's not just contrast framing. It's contrast farming.

source: pulled out of your a**

he may not be entirely correct, but Claude Code plans are significantly better than the API plan, 100$ plan may not be as cost effective but for 18$ you can get like 5x usage of the API plan.

I've seen dozens of "experts" all over the internet claim that they're "subsidizing costs" with the coding plans despite no evidence whatsoever. Despite the fact that various sources from OpenAI, Deepseek, model inference providers have suggested the contrary, that inference is very profitable with very high margins.

Just looking at my own usage at work, we’re spending around $50/day on OpenAI API credits (with Codex). With Claude Code I get higher usage limits for $200/month, or around $8/day. Probably the equivalent from OpenAI is around $100/day of API credits.

Maybe OpenAI has a 12x markup on API credits, or Anthropic is much better at running inference, but my best guess is that Anthropic is selling at a large loss.

You can't be comparing OpenAI API with Anthropic subscription. The comparison here is OpenAI Codex subscription with Anthropic subscription. And when you do that, it turns out that the Codex limits are a lot higher for the same price. So then if Anthropic is selling at a large loss, OpenAI is selling at an even much bigger one.

How am I gonna give you exact price savings, when on $18 amount of work you can do it is variable, while $100 on API only goes a limited amount. You can exhaust $100 on API in one work day easily. On $18 plan the limit resets daily or 12hrs, so you can keep coming back. If API pricing is correct, which it looks like because all top models have similar costs, then it is to believe that monthly plans are subsidised.

And if inference is so profitable why is OpenAI losing 100B a year

> Developers want to use these 3p client and pay you 200 a month, why are you pissing us off

Presumably because it costs them more than $200 per month to sell you it. It's a loss leader to get you into their ecosystem. If you won't use their ecosystem, they'd rather you just go over to OpenAI.

Presumably Claude Code is a loss leader to try to lock you into their ecosystem or at least get you to exclusive associate “AI” with “Claude”. So if it’s not achieving those goals, they’d prefer if you use OpenAI instead.

That's my understanding and that's what I see happening at some places.

People got a CC sub, invest on the whole tooling around CC (skills and whatnot) and once they're a few weeks/months in, they'll need a lot of convincing to even try something else.

And given how often CC itself changes and they need to keep up with it, that's even worse. It's not just not wanting to get out of your confort zone, it's just trying to keep up with your current tools. Now if you also have to try a new tool every other day, the 10x productivity improvements claimed won't be enough to cover the lack of actual working hours you'll be left with in a week.

I think most if not all of my CC customizations (skills, MCP config, CLAUDE.md) are quite easily portable to another agent. They are just text files. I may need to adjust one or two Claude specific things like thinking level instruction verbiage, but otherwise I don't see that as very sticky.

I’m not convinced that that’s an accurate view of Wikidata. Wikidata is a basically disconnected project. There is some connection, but it’s really very minimal and only for a small subset of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is 99% just text articles, not data combined together.

Frankly, I think the reason people haven’t built apps on top of Wikidata is that the data there isn’t very useful.

I say this not to diss Wikimedia, as the Wikipedia project itself is great and an amazing tool and resource. But Wikidata is simply not there.

I am also frustrated with Wikidata. The one practical use I've seen is a lot of OpenStreetMap places' multilingual names are locked to Wikidata, which makes it harder for a troll to drop in and rename something, and may encourage maintaining and reusing the data.

But I tried to do some Wikidata queries for stuff like: what are all the neighborhoods and districts of Hong Kong, all the counties in Taiwan, and it's piecemeal coverage, tags different from one entity to another, not everything in a group is linked to OSM. It's not a lot of improvement over Wikipedia's Category pages.

Microsoft was sort of showing that a year ago, and then spent the whole last year showing everyone that they're just another IBM.

It probably depends on what "The next IBM" means for people. Microsoft is so deeply embedded into companies right now that for larger cooperation it's practically impossible to get rid of them, and their cloud-driven strategy is very profitable.

IBM still makes a lot of money from large corporations that depend on them. But yet…

I have a friend who has someone who has repeatedly threatened to assault her, and her primary protection is keeping her address hidden from him. Should she never be allowed to own a house at risk of being assaulted?

Maybe have a limited exception then, like rape shield laws. You don't need to gut the entire framework for this rare situation. (Plus it would be fun to watch corporate lawyers try to exploit this loophole.)

Or maybe just stop telling people what cases are "legitimate" reasons to protect themselves and what cases aren't.

I know multiple people who have gotten death threats because of technical comments they made online, or just for having the temerity to exist as a member of a minority group. Not the vague "I'm going to kill you" kind, the "here's a picture of your front door on Google Street View, and an unsolicited pizza, I could SWAT you at any arbitrary 3am, have fun being afraid" type.

I don't feel like the solution to this is having victims set up LLCs.

It isn't, but that's the best solution that is currently available to people.

A better solution would be to stop putting people's addresses in public records, and eliminating data brokers that expose name/address correlations.

I mean I get where they are coming from. It doesn’t strike you as a little odd that people have to protect themselves from dangerous individuals stalking them by setting up businesses? That’s not a little circuitous/indirect? Is that really in line with the purpose of setting up a business in the first place?

It’s not like that’s the only way to hide your identity, it’s just one currently available. Plus it’s a very trivial to look up who owns an LLC at least in my state. Not the best solution IMO

Either way I think you’re being a little uncharitable towards them. I don’t think they’re trivializing it, I think they’re asking a very legitimate question.

Do you find this style of argument to be productive?

I think its pretty easy to separate investment properties from primary residences when it comes to transparency requirements.

> This is pure whataboutism

This is by definition not whataboutism. Whataboutism is when you distract from a thing with unrelated things (e.g. "but there are more important bad things going on in the world than this!"). It is not whataboutism to bring up legitimate related counterarguments for a policy.

True, I did misuse it to a degree. I was actually a bit unsure.

You'll have to trust me that she's real, but I promise you that this is a real situation that she's actually concerned about.

Look at the data - it had already been on the downslide for years before LLMs became a meaningful alternative. AI was the killing blow, but there was undoubtedly other factors.

The decline was much slower, not the following exponential decline that can only have been caused by LLMs.