You don't know the actual margins -- you only know the API rate. If their API rate has huge margins and the average subscriber isn't coming anywhere close to their limits, the subscription can be very profitable. If they're only near peak capacity in peak working hours (when API traffic is most active) and subscription 5h limits help them redistribute a lot of use outside peak hours when they've got spare capacity, that alone could make a massive difference in profitability.
- What are the margins of Anthropic over their API pricing? Without this, all we're saying is the API is more expensive for heavy usage
- How have their price margins changed over time? I imagine built into their commercial model is the expectation for inference to get cheaper over time
- They have tighter usage windows than they used to, now having both 5-hour and weekly limits, they also seem to experiment with their usage quite often, this probably affects user's average utilisation, do they have any other levers they can pull here? eg how does changing to an 8-hour window affect it, or limiting certain models to API-only usage based on capacity like Fable
I know there is a certain level of subsidised usage built into their subscriptions, the VC-funded company playbook, but I don't think anyone from the outside knows for sure how much it is and I imagine it's lower than most people think, and reducing over time.
I get that, but the drawbacks outweigh the benefits imho and the b64 overhead is not solved, just deferred.
Say I want to distribute an hmml file as a single file, I'd have to create an html with the embedded js runtime, and then embed the hmml file... as b64, therefore negating any benefits.
I like orbstack in theory, but I find it hard to justify a $96/yr license fee for something that has so many open source, free alternatives. As it is, I’d rather use podman or colima
The alternatives are all broken in some ways is the answer, including the official paid docker enterprise.
Personally I’d rather the company provisioned me MacBook hardware with Linux. Unless Fable or some other ai ports asahi properly to modern hardware I expect to retire before this is possible, orbstack is the next best thing, available today.
Back in the day I wrote a PoC exploit for my employers app that abused an image upload api by embedding a jar file inside an svg as XXE which then got me RCE. Fun times.
It's not even very usable... I tried 2 different chats and both eventually got stopped due to the safeguards
One was a piece of code I gave it to improve, it did so and then started writing tests, some of which tested security so the safeguards triggered
Another was one of the cryptography puzzles I use as new model tests, which are hard to oneshot and there's no public solution anywhere, it completely refused to even try to solve it
I find it quite dishonest as github stars used to be (and maybe still are?) the measure of an open source project popularity, and these big, flashy LLM generated repos seem to always get a bit of attention
Have seen it from jobseekers trying to boost their profile with fake projects, founders trying to make their product more attractive to VCs, consultants trying to advertise their services...
I don't always have time for OSS, but every PR I've ever sent has always been hand written, and tested, and has taken into consideration the project coding style and architecture choices – I don't like this new world where developers can't even be bothered to write the docs.
How does this compare to the classic css-native parallax effect? Before the scroll timeline APIs you'd use the "perspective" css property to create a container where the z plane is n pixels away from the screen, and then position each layer within it at a different z distance using transform: translateZ
That method is GPU accelerated too, so it is performant compared to some js solutions, and has worked well in every browser for around a decade
I like the idea of the scroll-timeline though, just keen to understand what the advantage is for this
OP here, thanks for asking. While the `perspective` technique works too, it has the downside of needing a careful combination of scroller elements and properties.
This approach adds a single class to the image container and that's it. Plus you can control many aspects of the animation such as entry/exit ranges, and make it control other properties like opacity or color, for example.
I know browser support is still lacking, but it will get there eventually. I'm not using this in production code yet, but I think it's useful to experiment with these new CSS APIs.
When using Z, if the element is close to the bottom of the page, or a very large Z, I found it to increase the length of the scroll bar unexpectedly. Or unexpectedly to me looking for parallax, it would make sense as a normal zoom or scale.
This method should still support GPU acceleration, as `transform` (or rotate/scale/etc.) is the only property being animated. The benefit of animation-timeline seems to be that it's much easier to set up than a CSS perspective context.
No doubt quite a few folk with the same question. Keen to understand performance tradeoffs.
Obvious comparison note would be that the "new" method currently enjoys somewhat limited browser support (no Firefox without a flag, and only since Safari 26)
I was wondering the same thing. That translateZ is a bit fiddly to get right, so I could believe this is a bit easier to use, maybe? And presumably this could be used for other properties besides position, like colors, opacity or blurs.
This is cool, I have SVT and usually am able to stop an episode if I do slow breathing like that; although sometimes if that doesn’t work the modified reverse valsalva manoeuvre does it every time.
reply