> The US did not retreat. We fought multiple wars to maintain our power and influence. We toppled multiple regimes to maintain puppet governments. Very much the same as the USSR and China have done.
As much as I am critical of the US, until now the US did behave very differently from other superpowers. Consider the end of WWII. The US did not inflict reparations on the vanquished nations but rather, invested huge sums in their rebuilding, in the process making stalwart allies of them. These were not puppet governments, they became thriving democracies.
This is not to excuse the many bad things the US has done in Latin America, Vietnam, etc. But there is really no comparison between US behaviour and that of the USSR (or of colonial European countries, for that matter). People in Soviet-controlled East Germany were quite keen to go to the west and did not perceive the presence of US military bases there as evidence of American totalitarianism.
That, of course, has changed and now America is seen as a predatory hegemon. But that has not always been true.
The US did not keep bases in all of West Germany though.
There were different sectors. The US had essentially the South. There were also the British sector and French. The Soviets were the fourth sector but we all know how that one was quite different from the other three.
While the French and British have mostly left, the US stayed. Though to be fair even the British still do have some bases it seems as NATO troups. But no more large garrison in many larger cities.
The US on the other hand is still there with much larger force. Like think back to "Air Force One" (the movie with Harrison Ford) which used Ramstein Airbase in the movie (though they didn't actually film there) and that airbase has come up in the Iran conflict as a conflict of its own. Meaning Germany didn't want the US to use it as a hub for US operations (supply logistics) for the Iran war.
> The US on the other hand is still there with much larger force.
To provide for European security! That’s the deal in terms of Europe and NATO and also specifically to handle Germany. The idea was that America would provide security to Europe including the nuclear umbrella, and one benefit - among many others - was that Germany would not need to have a powerful military.
Can you perhaps guess why people might be concerned about a heavily armed Germany in the postwar period? Those same concerns are bubbling up in European capitals right now, as Germany rearms due to the loss of the US as a reliable partner.
And yes I definitely remember Colbert quite some time ago quipping about exactly that (paraphrased from memory): US no longer reliable NATO partner and nuclear deterrent. So Europe needs to step up. Let's have Germany have nukes. What could possibly go wrong!
The obviously funny thing being, that the US has, for a long time and Trump doubled down, asked Europe including Germany to spend more on military. And the "moderate forces" in Germany are not an issue in that regard. Those are the ones not wanting Trump to use Ramstein airbase in a war he started.
But would you want the AfD to come to power and wield those ramped up, potentially now nuclear, forces? The party that was ruled as "definitely extremist right wing aka neo nazi" in some federal states by Germany's own "Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution". Oh and also was that not the party a certain Elon Musk and Trump were trying to prop up? Which is doubly funny because of the AfD's alleged ties to Putin (sometimes more than alleged).
> But would you want the AfD to come to power and wield those ramped up, potentially now nuclear, forces?
Totally! That’s what makes the situation doubly maddening. It would be one thing if these actions were bad for the world and good for the US. But they’re bad for the US too!
I forget who it was that said this, and I’m sure my paraphrasing is bad, but I listened or read something I found chilling. It was something like, ordinary Americans are totally unprepared for the level of danger they will experience over the coming decades.
The only reason Trump is able to destroy global institutions so easily is because Americans take their security for granted. But that security is the result of institutions developed in the aftermath of an utterly devastating war. Now those institutions are damaged and America’s friends are alienated, right when they are most needed to deal with China, Russia, AI, drones, cyber, nuclear, climate…talk about bad timing.
> As much as I am critical of the US, until now the US did behave very differently from other superpowers. Consider the end of WWII. The US did not inflict reparations on the vanquished nations but rather, invested huge sums in their rebuilding, in the process making stalwart allies of them.
That is also how Rome routinely dealt with the border tribes that it defeated. It's not a new idea. That's just what superpowers do.
Spain, France, the entire iron curtain following 1992 dissolution of USSR, Taiwan, Phillipines, Costa Rica, Panama ... and speaking of central America, Venezuela isn't doing so bad either. Perhaps more expansive lists could be produced once the definitions of "meddled with" and "treated well" are more refined.
My take: it is not enshittification to raise the price for a product whose demand outstrips its supply. That is basic economics. There are alternatives, it’s not a monopoly. If you think it’s the best product, then pay more for it.
Personally I would be perfectly content if the price of Max went up a bit and Pro no longer worked for CC if it meant that Max was faster and more stable.
I had a similar experience with running out of usage quite quickly, after setting up one design system properly, and then getting pretty close with a second one. But it's a research preview - I'm sure it will change.
I was quite happy with what I pulled off using the first design system: I wanted a new footer section for my IPAAS startup, it generated four options, the fourth of which was quite good. We iterated on it for a bit, then I pulled it into Claude Code (that integrated feature is very cool), CC built it, I deployed it, done. (Bottom section of https://tediware.com/ if you're interested, the bit with "Origin story" on the left and the signup panel on the right).
It was not a complicated build by any means but I liked the concept it developed and it was dead-easy to make it all happen. I think the ideas in the UI are very good. Still rough, but you can see where this could go, and it's got a ton of potential.
I mean, it's fine and serves it's purpose, but I'm a bit confused what you are getting that you wouldn't get with the millions of pre-made designs and design systems? Like Tailwind UI for example.
I find that with the ubiquity of Tailwind, developers treat design as a "solved problem". What's missing is the specific evolution of one's product and the resultant information architecture. The sibling response is my experience as well, design is an incredibly interactive exercise.
Granted, not every component on every surface will need this amount of scrutiny. But I'm usually the outlier developer warning teammates that design is not a solved problem. Granted, there's a huge difference between an existing app and its evolution and throwing a nextjs landing page up in search of any life.
Even with bootstrap, design was a solved problem. What you bring with a UI designer is appeal (aka make thing pretty and enjoyable). If you want utilitarian, even the old x11 toolkit like Athena, Win 98 era widgets would do the part.
I wouldn’t, but you’re not much of a product designer if you can’t get your ideas across using simple tools like a sketch on a whiteboard (there was|is an app the let you take photos and link them using active areas).
So you can take bootstrap (or even raw html) and create something useful. Then you make it nice, not the other way around.
You would have to be a big outlier to feel the need to create a custom widget. Most widgets have been defined since decades.
I agree that design is about primitives. wireframes and IA should come across clearly at any fidelity.
But i don't think that's what tailwind and bootstrap are doing. But people very much use these tools to "solve design".
The layouts, widgets, and primitives in these tools are not primitives. I can't deny they get tons of people very far very fast. But my main disagreement is that all of this isn't design and it's not what designers do. You touched on what i agree with: UX flows, diagrams, stories, journeys, personas, etc, these all need to be designed and connected in reality using various primitives for the medium.
Then you slap a cohesive paint job on it, interaction elements, tone and terminology and yes, there is that element of design too.
Iterative experience (experimenting with different ideas, deciding what works best) and speed of execution (once I was happy with it, making it happen required almost no work).
Yes. Even without Claude design and just Claude code, it can use existing design and build out new mockups in-app, which is much easier to demo , tweak and then implement the backend (if any) - all through Claude Code (or Codex if you prefer that). We use both and are now leaning more towards Codex over Claude
Yeah I really want more information than "on a walk". Really? No digging whatsoever involved? Did they walk past an eroding riverbank or something? I'm so curious.
There are still SO MANY insanely ugly, hard-to-use, absolutely horrible apps out there though. Sure, in consumer-focused apps, there's a lot of competition and pretty much everything popular is well-designed. But in enterprise? My god, it's still a massive shitshow.
The hilarious thing is that I would be willing to bet than in a decade, it's STILL a massive shitshow in enterprise. That's because the problem with enterprise software is not that good design is all that difficult to pull off (it just requires caring!) It's that the people making enterprise software have terrible taste and can't even see (I am convinced) that the thing they built is ugly and hard-to-use.
> It's that the people making enterprise software have terrible taste and can't even see (I am convinced) that the thing they built is ugly and hard-to-use.
Generally the issue with enterprise is that its designed to appeal to the stakeholders who will make the purchasing decision, not the person who is actually going to use it. The people making it may have great taste and know damn well what they could do to make it more usable, but if a clean and easy tool doesn't match someone's preconceived notion of what the purchaser thinks the tool ought to look like then it's not going to fly.
> Anthropic doesn't have the compute so everyone can switch to Claude for a couple months, get nerfed, switch back.
This seems to be the new narrative around here but it's not jiving with what I'm experiencing. Obviously Anthropic's uptime stats are terrible but when it's up, it's excellent (and I personally haven't had any issues with uptime this week, although my earlier-in-the-week usage was lighter than usual).
I'm loving 4.7. I was loving 4.6 too. I use Codex to get code reviews done on Claude-generated code but have no interest in using it as my daily driver.
You mean openrouter.ai. And yes, on reading this blog post, I immediately reviewed my API keys in OpenRouter to make sure that they were capped. My prod key was capped at $20/day (phew!) but my dev key had no cap, which I just updated. What a horrible story.
You can set it to auto top up if it drops below a certain amount. If you do that, then it would definitely be wise to add a cap. They let you add daily/weekly caps, which is convenient.
Is anyone enjoying the process of deploying agentic AI for clients/employers? I have been working on stuff in the space ever since a senior exec at a client became enamoured with OpenClaw and I had the choice of either letting her go full foot-gun or enabling her to do what she wanted with agentic AI. I built a fair bit of stuff that sounds like this project to try and put some guardrails, observability, security, etc., around OpenClaw, but I have to say that the flakiness of the overall system is a huge turnoff for me.
The lack of predictable output/outcomes, the number of things that can go wrong (rate limits, this or that service stopping, a "cron" job seemingly disabling itself, permissions that don't stick, on and on it goes), does not make for an enjoyable development experience. People are getting value from it and on some level it's quite remarkable what can be done, but never in my life have users of my software had such little faith that what worked properly yesterday will work properly today. I have had far better results using LLM APIs.
> How does that actually show up in practice for you?
It shows up as inconsistency. One of the key things I built in this architecture is the ability of users to define standard operating procedures (SOPs). These are the instructions (i.e. prompt) for the agent to do tasks (I've integrated Sonnet via OpenRouter into the SOP drafting UI, so people have help creating these - and the system prompt for this knows about the API endpoints that the agents have access to, so people get good advice as they write them).
Anyway, it's not uncommon for someone to write an SOP, test it a couple of times, decide that it works, and then tell people it's good to go. There's probably a 1 in 3 possibility that it doesn't actually work when someone else tries it. The reasons for that are almost endless it seems.
This is just one aspect. It seems like something new fails every day. Today:
- the agent stopped responding to incoming email. I dug into it. Somehow the tailscale hostname had changed. I had not changed it. I have no idea why it changed. This is not OpenClaw's fault, but it speaks to my point that there are too many moving parts with these things.
- the agent stopped sending emails when tasks were completed. This runs on a "cron" job. I went through the list of the cron jobs. The "task reporter" cron job was disabled. Why? No idea. I didn't disable it. I'm the sole "operator" of the OpenClaw instance, so if I didn't disable it, then something inside OpenClaw did. Why? I don't know.
What I do know is that someone pings me every day with a complaint that something is not working, which is a new experience for me, and it's embarrassing.
I always wonder if competitive market dynamics will solve problems like these, at least to some extent and for some people, because the people who retain the ability to communicate in a distinctive, persuasive and original style will be rewarded. Corporate dronespeak is no less homogeneous than AI writing, and companies with this communication style are regularly disrupted by nimbler, more authentic-sounding competitors.
I sure hope so. The way companies are pressured to hit growth numbers, I really hope messaging in general doesn’t all get sloppified along with code lol.
I think AI writing makes humanities and writing courses more important, and I hope people maintain their sense of taste with writing, but tbh I’m not optimistic here.
As much as I am critical of the US, until now the US did behave very differently from other superpowers. Consider the end of WWII. The US did not inflict reparations on the vanquished nations but rather, invested huge sums in their rebuilding, in the process making stalwart allies of them. These were not puppet governments, they became thriving democracies.
This is not to excuse the many bad things the US has done in Latin America, Vietnam, etc. But there is really no comparison between US behaviour and that of the USSR (or of colonial European countries, for that matter). People in Soviet-controlled East Germany were quite keen to go to the west and did not perceive the presence of US military bases there as evidence of American totalitarianism.
That, of course, has changed and now America is seen as a predatory hegemon. But that has not always been true.
reply