soraminazuki

Enron was running a "profit," and how did it turn out for them? Using accounting tricks to exclude costs, through means like a one-time SpaceX compute discount, doesn't make your hype a reality.

Actually, I agree. I wasn't talking about consumer boycotts in particular. With the current concentration of money and power, consumer choice has less influence on corporations with each passing day. This is made abundantly clear with the current wipeout of the personal computing market to make way for AI data centers.

So I believe that the lesson we should learn here is the importance of public pressure and proper regulations that rein in bad actors.

I have one objection, though. It's a mistake to think that Anthropic is on the consumer's side. That's the same mistake we've made over and over.

> lesson learned and reputations lost

I think that's an overly optimistic take, because we've been through this over and over, and it's only getting worse. We collectively are clearly not getting the message, and we don't own anything as a result.

You literally made a bunch of things up and directly contradicted the statement you so vehemently defended. That's not "sensible," and pointing that out is very different from word lawyering. No amount of "trying Claude Code" will compensate for that.

Just calm down. You seem to be personally offended at the mere suggestion that Claude Code isn't a good fit for everything, or that it's not even more trustworthy than Google. That's just a fact, not a "rant." If you feel the impulse to throw a tantrum because of that, I genuinely urge you to revisit your relationship with your cloud subscription because it's definitely not healthy for you, or the people around you.

> OK, explain, what to the "just use Claude code" means in your opinion.

I see you didn't get the message. It's not about opinions. Don't add a bunch of extra meanings to suit your argument.

The original comment was:

> just use claude code to use rclone on a server and let it run automatically, its great and easy

First, it says "use claude code to use rclone." It's very simple English, yet it directly contradicts your claim that "you're not even using Claude code to run rclone for you."

> Because that's the only way I'd understand someone to go on such rant.

Yeah, no wonder given the above.

Going back to the original comment, it says it's easy. Easier than not using Claude Code, which is typing `rclone copy <source> .`. Every justification that you pulled out of thin air is more complicated than that.

> Is this what you'd do?

Again, you're not reading. Read my original comment. And the reply to your comment. I wouldn't use Claude Code in this situation. I'd just type `rclone copy <source> .`.

The comment I was responding to only said "just use claude code." So every single word you wrote in your reply is a hallucination.

If you genuinely believe that "just use claude code" means any of the things you wrote, you are definitely not careful enough to take the precautions necessary to contain commercial spyware. Claude Code would read your credentials and probe your files to "see if everything is set up correctly" and you won't think twice about it.

And again, all this just to run `rclone copy`.

Don't worry, Google is a trillion dollar company. We've been paying with our privacy, our attention, our psychological health, our economic well-being, and our voice in the democratic process. Even those of us who have de-Googled are paying the price. How much more do we possibly owe them?

That said, I do appreciate that your proposal isn't to pay Google even more though.

But by using Claude Code, you're essentially handing over your data from Google's bot to another data-hungry bot run by an equally untrustworthy entity.

You don't need an anthropomorphized computer program running on trillion dollar companies' servers just to run `rclone copy`.

I mean, it's not like you actually believe that, do you?

Protecting your privacy in the face of malicious investigations isn't "destruction of evidence" to everyone but authoritarians who hate human rights. The fact that you regard taking a stand for fundamental freedoms a crime while saying nothing about politically motivated investigations is telling.

It doesn't matter when GitHub has been acquired. The only thing that matters is whether it's part of a broader pattern, which it is. Remember Skype?

You're arguing against a group of people who have the galls to falsely report a site for phishing and then use that to delegitimize what it says.

> these folks are the best argument for replacing human decision making with machines.

So the best way forward is to succumb to the tech oligarchs' plan?

I strongly disagree. Machines aren't neutral nor fair. They exist to impose the will of the people operating them. Have you already forgotten what social media algorithms, that "cold, logical, emotionless machines" that you speak so highly of, did to our society?

Earning billions and being cruel are inseparable. It is simply not possible to lay hands on such astronomical amounts of wealth without massive exploitation, which is why billionaires have the character traits that you describe.