Hard to see how legislation fixes this though. If the models are good enough to be worth stealing, they're accessible enough to be stolen. That's not a China problem, that's a business model problem.

Maybe that's why Anthropic cut off the Max Plan from API calls. It was a no-no until last week when it became not possible anymore. Needless to say, my API costs or more than $200 a month now. Glad they ramped up sonnet to 4.6 and 1/5 the cost of Opus.

The quantization comparison is the feature I'd use most. It's one of those things that sounds simple but in practice nobody wants to dig through benchmarks just to figure out whether Q4 or Q8 is worth the extra memory on their specific machine.

Does it factor in what else is running in the background when estimating how much your machine can handle? That number can shift a lot depending on what else has memory tied up.

The "survive interruptions" piece is underrated. Anyone who has had a long agentic run get killed by a dropped connection knows the pain. Session persistence isn't glamorous but it changes how you actually use these tools day to day.

Curious how it handles multiple local sessions — if you're running separate agents on the same machine for different projects, can you switch between them remotely or are you stuck being able to only remote control 1 bot?

My 4 kids all use i-Ready. It has real value for reinforcing lessons — but some teachers lean on it as a one-size-fits-all substitute rather than a supplement. That's where it falls apart.

The honest version of AI in education isn't here yet: truly dynamic, personalized lesson paths that adapt to each student in real time. When that exists, the multiple-choice quiz model i-Ready is built on won't be able to compete. The question is just — when does every student get an AI that functions as their own individual teacher?

Reasonable progression: warning email → quota throttle → AI Pro subscription suspended → Google account suspended.

They skipped to step 4 on a first offense, paid account, no appeal. That's not a terms enforcement system, that's a hostage situation. "Comply or lose your digital life."

The real lesson isn't "don't use OpenClaw." It's: never let one company own your primary identity infrastructure.

No bank closes your checking account because you used your debit card at a competitor's ATM.

The offense and the penalty are in completely different weight classes. That's what makes this indefensible regardless of whether the policy itself is legitimate.

The steaks-in-bag analogy would apply if you were somehow extracting MORE than your quota. You're not. You're just routing the same tokens differently.