This is specifically finance language for budgeting and one of the better ways to speak about this given the public disclosure of this information is substantial for their publicly traded stock.
I do exactly this (and more since my role is much broader and so is my approach) as a fractional head of product, data, and operations for multiple companies all in healthcare (fast growing self-funded to series D/IPOing soon). I saw your initial launch and felt validated by you all working on it, and now I’m further validated by the pivot. I have more work than I can handle, so I’m happy to share tips. You can find me via a bit of googling my HN handle or just adding a dot com to the end.
From inspecting the Cowork VM, the pollution is not documented and not controllable (publicly known - I have workarounds). It creates a lot of waste and frustration in the process.
CLAUDE_CODE_ADDITIONAL_DIRECTORIES_CLAUDE_MD=1 means claude finds and loads all the CLAUDE.md of all the mounted repos overtime (and by settings). As such, working on multiple unrelated repos at the same time isn’t a pleasant experience out of the box.
A few other interesting VM ENVs:
CLAUDE_CODE_IS_COWORK=1
CLAUDE_CODE_BRIEF=1 CLAUDE_CODE_BRIEF_UPLOAD=1 CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_AUTO_MEMORY=1 CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_BACKGROUND_TASKS=1 CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_CRON=1
CLAUDE_CODE_ENTRYPOINT=local-agent CLAUDE_CODE_EXECPATH=/usr/local/bin/claude CLAUDE_CODE_HOST_HTTP_PROXY_PORT=36543 CLAUDE_CODE_HOST_PLATFORM=darwin CLAUDE_CODE_HOST_SOCKS_PROXY_PORT=46673
USE_STAGING_OAUTH= _=/usr/bin/env all_proxy=socks5h://localhost:1080 ftp_proxy=socks5h://localhost:1080 grpc_proxy=socks5h://localhost:1080 http_proxy=http://localhost:3128 https_proxy=http://localhost:3128 no_proxy=localhost,127.0.0.1,::1,.local,.local,169.254.0.0/16,10.0.0.0/8,172.16.0.0/12,192.168.0.0/16
Can you push the results in a benchmark repo under the GitHub account linked from the parent Readme of the project?
The full transparency would be very helpful to know where these strengths are coming from which at a glance look to be multi-threaded in-memory processing.
Hi Fellow HN tech community, I’ve had the honor to digitally interact with Chad Whitacre, and from the first exchange to the subsequent ones over the months, he’s a good human. Chad provided a healthy, human-first approach to the most fundamental areas of free software. He possesses a deep understanding of how we all do better together. He is a person to celebrate for all the ways he was and is. Chad made our online lives richer by his ways of being. Cheers to Chad and his continued living as a good human!
Ivan worked at Align and was CTO of European DTC competitor. I agree with Ivan that both technologies have their sweet spot. I disagree with the scale piece and the frequency of visits as there are practices doing both those things differently using the placement and remote monitoring technology.
For younger patients that haven’t had braces before which is the majority of historical patient populations and future ones, 3D printed personalized braces systems are better as the tooth movement needed is more clinically substantial at tougher angles. Many younger patients forget and lose their plastic aligners.
That said: what is chosen should be what for the whole person at multiple levels.
This isn’t the case with 3D printed bracket systems. Studies have shown that the 3D personalized bracket system from LightForce will cut down treatment time over 40%. The refinement phase is also spot on and finishes much faster, and recent studies have shown further improvements. Also, the more complex the case, the larger the delta on the performance. Not all orthos are practicing this way but this is where the future is going whether it is LightForce or another company. The physics just works out better than the best plastics.
Disclaimer: I’m a health nerd and was an employee a couple years ago.
It's great to see that others have had better experiences than me. I had to upgrade from my M1 Air cause I kept on hitting issues. Note that I'm more on the power user side, and not on the typical light use side in my computer/software use cases day-to-day.
I would recommend a more systemic mapping like Power Scorecard from Demos.org [1] to help ground the mappings to impacts on populations. Ideally, one would be able to swap the system mappings based on the preferred context, as there are different policies that should be looked at in different ways to assure optimal positive impacts with minimal secondary negative impacts. I haven’t seen a perfect way of doing this yet, but this will be directional correct on the pathway to something even better for all of us. Thank you for your labor of love and efforts!
The founders are all on a first name basis. I’m surprised no one has noted that Anthropic and OpenAI winning together by giving the world two different choices, just like the US does in its political landscape. In this circumstance, OpenAI wins the local market for its government and aligned entities (while having the free consumer by a matter of cost dynamic for that ideal customer profile which is vary broad and similar to Google’s search audience where most their revenue still depends), while Anthropic is provided the global market and prosumer market where people can afford choice by paying for it.
My attempt with trying one of their OOTB prompts in the demo https://chat.inceptionlabs.ai resulted in:
"The server is currently overloaded. Please try again in a moment."
And a pop-up error of:
"The string did not match the expected pattern."
That happened three times, then the interface stopped working.
I was hoping to see how this stacked up against Taalas demo, which worked well and was so fast every time I've hit it this past week.
If we don't see a huge gain on the long-term horizon thinking reflected with the Vendor-Bench 2, I'm not going to switch away from CC. Until Google can beat
Anthropic on that front, Claude Code paired with the top long-horizon models will continue to pull away with full stack optimizations at every layer.
For a bit more context, most email infrastructures I’ve worked with are for transactional and marketing DTC and B2B companies. I would read my response in this context.
Re one-time setups and one-time changes: I think this will answer both questions and the implied PMF question as well. For internal FTE staff, this will be handle as a one off exception consistently (it’s really no one’s full-time job or responsibility). You may wish to speak with teams that offer professional services / SaaS including self-hosted where this infrastructure would be helpful. Their jobs are made easier with additional predicable / dependable infrastructure software (ie chat with (a) Twilio’s messaging team which remains the SendGrid acquisition, (b) related Red Hat / IBM) vs more work for an individual who is just doing this one-off. You may wish to consider a revenue share and/or white-labeling as they co-install the infrastructure for your business.
Having sent billions of emails between multiple startups:
RE setup and testing: Trust (as is most devops one-time setups). Once the initial email setup is complete, you typically aren’t paying with it much. The black swan outages aren’t really an active concern.
RE PII: email is non-secure and shouldn’t have sensitive data in production either. Also, dev/test shouldn’t have PII in regulated industries as a good hygiene practice (I’ve worked in healthcare, finance, and national security contexts).
Re licensing: I appreciate your openness and clarity on the licensing of the gateway engine as AGPL vs MIT for the rest. There’s a more modern licensing approach with FSL-1.1-MIT. It may be a better fit for customers (ie clear licensing terms when using a paid license and less concerns if the business goes defunct or pivots) and for your business plans.
What’s next 5 years look like given that you are very good at building long-term projects that last and evolve through time? And for a very specific example, what’s the plan for incorporating new standards like Agent Skills as they quickly evolve and launch?