itsalotoffun

n=1 but my experience is the ratio of what'd I'd class "senior" devs (per the example given) to everyone else is comfortably 10:1.

I WISH this mattered. I wish data breaches actually carried consequences. I wish people cared about this. But people don't care. Right up until you're targeted for ID theft, fraud or whatever else. But by then the causality feels so diluted that it's "just one of those things" that happens randomly to good people, and there's "nothing you can do". Horseshit.

I'm always amazed at these relatively tiny projects that "launch" with a "customers" list that reads like they've spent 10 years doing hard outbound enterprise sales: Google, Intel, Apple, Amazon, Deloitte, IBM, Ford, Meta, Uber, Tencent, etc.

I think GP means that if you internalize the bitter lesson (more data more compute wins), you stop imagining how to squeeze SOTA minus 1 performance out of constrained compute environments.

> something AI would make quick work of.

The easier it is for AI to do the lower its actual value. So the more you're right about this, the more you're wrong.

The compelling use case is grift.

No. They're just desperately trying to limit the number of tokens burned per $200/mo account. It's trivial to burn 1-3x that dollar amount per DAY even before you're loaning your account out to friends in different timezones. And as ccusage will show, if you were paying API pricing rates your $200/mo plan would consume closer to $3-5k/mo in "credits".

Somehow you're "not allowed" to run your account 24/7. Why the hell not? Well because then they're losing money. So it's "against their ToS". Wtf? Basically this whole Claude Code "plan" nonsense is Anthropic lighting VC on fire to aggressively capture developer market share, but enough "power users" (and don't buy the bullshit that it's "less than 5%") are inverting that cost:revenue equation enough to make even the highly capitalized Anthropic take pause.

They could have just emailed the 4.8% of users doing the dirty, saying "hey, bad news". But instead EVERYONE gets an email saying "your access to Claude Code's heavily subsidized 'plans' has been nerfed".

It's the bait and switch that just sucks the most here, even if it was obviously and clearly coming a mile away. This won't be the last cost/fee balancing that happens. This game has only gotten started. 24/7 agents are coming.

Vibe pricing. That's all this is. "Pay us $200/mo and get... access". There's no way to get a real usage meter (ccusage doesn't count). I want an Anthropic dashboard showing "you've used x% of your paid quota". Instead we get vibe usage. Vibe pricing. "Hey pay us money and we'll give you some level of access but like you won't know what, but don't worry only 5% of our users will trip the switches" bullshit. Someone else in this thread nailed it:

> sounds like it affects pretty much everyone who got some value out of the tool

Feels that way.

But compared to paying the so-called API pricing (hello ccusage) Claude Code Max is still a steal. I'm expecting to have to run two CC Max plans from August onwards.

$400/mo here we come. To the moon yo.

This is what being part of the problem looks like. Not ok.

That's awesome, thanks Charlie. Any word on a privacy policy?

Totally understand, but you're asking for the keys for the kingdom, without any data disclosure or privacy policy. Even if you switch to fine-grain permissions, the lack of any "and here are our commitments to handling or accessing your data" is (and should be) a show-stopper for anyone trying this out.

In case people aren't reading, here's the c+v of what Conductor gets access to currently:

--

This application will be able to read and write all public and private repository data. This includes the following:

    Code
    Issues
    Pull requests
    Wikis
    *Settings*
    *Webhooks and services*
    *Deploy keys*
    *Collaboration invites*

Note: In addition to repository related resources, the repo scope also grants access to manage organization attributes and organization-owned resources including projects, invitations, team memberships and webhooks. This scope also grants the ability to manage projects owned by users.

Full read-write access required to all your Github account's repos. Not just code. Settings, deploy keys. The works. Full access to your organisation settings. Not a privacy policy in sight. Zero disclosure of data practices.

You are INSANE to authorize this app on anything other than throwaway code.

@charlieholtz care to comment?

Exactly. You can't both give the model access AND enforce security. You CAN convince yourself you've done it though. You see it all the time, including in this thread.

And at this rate, 6% by 2035, come onnnnn!