firesteelrain

N100 mini PCs are easy to come by on sites like Newegg. Cringley was laser cutting cases. Then, you have open source software like Comitup that would make it easy to auto setup WiFi and tailscale for bypassing home NATs. You can script a lot of that stuff

Building a mineserver today feels like it would be a lot easier with say a N100/N150 mini PC then with all of the modern open source Minecraft software components like Paper or Crafty. The idea was good, just too lofty and underpriced. Also fairly niche. Making it plug and play for nontechnical parents is what made the requirements difficult.

I guess that’s easier than Dropbox

It’s all one lightweight VM. Containers share the VM’s kernel.

Goalposts moved again. Started with 4th amendment argument then keep changing your tune. Goodbye

It’s been changed. Strawman

> Nothing about what the government has said suggests any reason that Claude Code is a risk. So why are you insisting that it is and that the government is justified in banning it?

I think there is an important distinction here because even the Government’s own lawyer conceded that a contractor using Claude code is not necessarily a risk.

The nuance is relying on Claude code as part of a DoW delivered or production system. This case puts Anthropic directly into the supply chain. Thus, if Claude is actually part of a DoW-procured capability, Anthropic still controls the model. DoW’s argument is that Anthropic could put something in there to perturb or retard the capability that DoW is after. DC Circuit said the department viewed that as a national-security problem because Anthropic had refused to accept a contract term the department considered necessary.

THEN, because the statute covers IT technology that can be manipulated to not fulfill the mission that the DoW wants/needs it is then by statute a supply chain risk.

If an employee might be a supply chain risk in this analogy then they conduct background checks before they let them do anything and conduct periodic investigations. Otherwise, they don’t get access to the code base or information

Look at it a different way. What if Claude was trusted to provide information to support a sensitive military operation and it subtly gave say bad coordinates or wrong info. Since it’s near impossible to test every possible output, the US Government is treating the entire model system as a supply chain risk because it is perceived to be manipulative and possibly compromising to national security for military operations

It hasn’t shown to be a supply chain risk yet.

Maybe. That statement is doing a lot of heavy lifting. It’s a different argument than saying Anthropic’s restriction would have prevented it (it was based on bad intel/old military installation)

It is if the auto generated code for say safety critical or mission critical code generated by a LLM or even someone tries to put LLM in the decision loop and it refuses to do an action.

Humans make mistakes too.

I think you are latching onto terms that were not declared. This is covered in the Appeals court case.

> Moreover, they already clearly stated their terms and preferences.

No it isn’t see above

I don’t use those words but I agree it’s unsettled.

It’s hardly “self defining” as the Appeals Court noted because military operations can involve different degrees of human involvement in targeting decisions. It’s not as binary as people have been trying to portray it.

[1] https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/09/26-104...

It is though. Read the opinion here: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/09/26-104...

It’s a risk that persons may otherwise manipulate the operation of a covered technology to deny or disrupt its function. The statute allows the DoW to do this.

> but it's not free to then claim the company that offered those terms is a security risk

Yes they are free to do that. You have to blame Congress for giving them that authority under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act and specifically 41 U.S.C. § 4713.

But Claude’s ToS didn’t prohibit use of Claude for sensitive military operation but it was coded to do so. It was part of the government’s evidence

Correct so what’s wrong with that? Plenty of open weight models to use

Correct, they do not want “Boeing” to use Claude models to write software for airplanes for example

Humans are 100% in the loop with software patches and there are many people in the chain so that provenance is maintained. It’s not that Claude could never look at the source code

> They want their product kept out of specific decisions because it's not capable.

Herein lies the DoW’s point. Anthropic can’t dictate how the DoW conducts business.

> they might intentionally sabotage US military operations

Yes, this is why the DoW won’t use them.

Exactly coming from a London-Swedish guy the spewing nonsense is what I should have expected. What business of the US is what we do anyways?

VMWare Cloud Foundation with Dell R7725s

One did. But he was declared a traitor and treasonous. I agree with them.

It’s a pipeline requisition or feeder requisition. Sometimes companies will close and refresh it. Can’t rely on job listings alone

It’s clear you want the last word with AI help so I’ll let you have it.

Well their complaint triggered a formal DoD IG investigation and produced a highly critical audit plus fraud investigations. Trailblazer program was killed in 2006. That all happened well before Snowden. Snowden skipped all of those channels entirely. Binney and Drake were taken seriously but you are glossing over all do the other stuff that Snowden leaked that had nothing to do with the privacy concerns deemed that went beyond what FISA courts authorized (and no court found violation of 4th amendment).

Snowden did it completely wrong and you can’t convince me otherwise. I don’t see this conversation going further as you move the goalposts.