According to which criteria?

There are values beyond "basic convenience" that are important as well. Being independent from a subscription service is one of them. Having full control over your own media being another.

Moreover, subscriptions in general have disadvantages. For example:

1. If a subscription service decides to increase their prices tenfold, there is nothing a customer can do to stop them.

2. If they decide to stop operating completely, a customer also has no say into the matter.

3. If the subscription service decides to just unilaterally stop offering the service to a particular user, they can do so at their own discretion, at any time.

This all means that whatever value is being "obtained" by using a subscription service, it is only going to last for as long as the provider wants it to last.

There are very efficient ways to block all ads, including YouTube ads. uBlock Origin browser extension is one of them. SponsorBlock browser extension would also skip over in-video ads.

You are allowed to take one cookie. But you are allowed to view a public website multiple times if you so want.

What is the relevance?

If I understand correctly, OpenCode, i.e. the creator of the tool, does not use Anthropic's API. Their users do.

I am unsure where the connection can be made between the users violating some terms of service and a maker of a tool.

Of course we do not. Because there is no need. The process of compiling higher order language to assembly is deterministic and well-tested. There is no need to continue reviewing something that always yields the same result.

> We care that it works, and is correct for what it is supposed to do.

Exactly. Which is something we do not have with an output of an LLM. Because it can misunderstand or hallucinate.

Therefore, we always have to review it.

That is the difference between the output of compilers and the output of LLMs.

Which is in my opinion a fairly reasonable take.

But given the current situation, I would assume that the companies providing WebUSB tools like installers would also spend a few moments to create e.g. a Python script that would do the same thing but locally. So that anyone unwilling to use WebUSB within their browser can have a vetted and transparent way to get the same thing done.

Yes, that is typically the case. But I am not suggesting to compare against the ICE cars at all. I am only suggesting to compare Tesla against the other EV cars.

The only advantage of ICE cars is at the moment their lower price.

> 1.1 million active FSD subscriptions/purchases globally (reported in Tesla's Q4 2025 earnings deck and call)

No significantly better battery technology. No significantly more powerful or efficient motors. No significantly improved comfort.

They have been making minor improvements in many areas, yes. For instance, they added ventilated seats, adaptive suspension, front camera, etc. But those are not new technologies that would make them stand out. The competition already had such features before.

Meanwhile, the Chinese cars have head-up displays, massage seats, vehicle to load, internal power outlets, fridges, dimmable glass roofs and what not.

One might argue that Tesla is improving their driving assist technologies and that is, in Tesla's view, supposed to be the deciding factor which would make them stand out. But I am not sure about that.

Their better driving assist (the so-called "FSD") has not been available in Europe for years. But that is almost besides the point.

The most important question is, in my opinion, the following: Who cares about those systems enough that they would be willing to pay $100 a month or $8k, $10k, $15k or even more one time for this kind of technology?

From what I have heard, the majority of drivers does not care. Not for this kind of money. No matter how good such a system might be.

Assuming that there will be a significant number of people who would be willing to pay thousands of dollars extra for a driving assist feature is, in my opinion, detached from reality.

I do that as well. For me it is almost exclusively the case with the news sites.

> If it is a horrible ad-infested hole, I don't visit it at all.

Same.

> Otherwise, I load ads.

There is no "otherwise" for me. I simply do not want to load any kind of ads or "sponsored" content. I see no reason, either moral, ethical or other, to ever do that.

There has been two or three instances that I can remember when it did not block YouTube ads correctly for a couple of days. But those were quickly patched and it started to work again.

Why would you even watch a YouTube video with ads?

There are ad blockers, sponsor segment blockers, etc. If you use them, it will block almost every kind of YouTube ad.

Even if the ads are heavily personalized, the advertiser is still the one who is trying to push an idea onto you. Similarly, even if your social media account has a lot of personal information on you, the provider is still the one who is selecting which content will appear in you "feed".

I believe that these practices make people less self-aware of what they actually want. Because they mostly respond to suggestions. They do much less research into what is possible. They just say yes or no to the things they see in their ads or in their "feed". While becoming more and more distant from the reality that is happening outside the provider-managed ads or "feeds".

I think that a safe way out of this is to ignore ads and "feeds" completely. And actively search for the things or content you want. Curate your interests in a way you like. Not in a way advertisers or providers want.

It is like saying that you pay $30,000 for a car. But the most important question is: For which car?

Also, if the installation services are so expensive, you can always install everything yourself.

Study how to do it, get the tools and materials, and then do it. It would be time-consuming, challenging and perhaps it would carry extra risks. Absolutely.

But it is not rocket science. It can be done. As long as there is a motivation to do it, i.e. a good value you will get out of it in return, it should be a valid approach to consider, in my opinion.

Very renewable. Solar panels are mostly glass, silicon and a little bit of metal. And they last ~30 years. Wind turbine blades are made out of fiberglass or similar materials. They may need replacing every ~30 years as well.

Other infrastructure would not need any significant maintenance for even longer.

These kind of power plants, apart from being renewable, have very low running costs. And that is the point.

Of course their production is very variable and therefore they cannot be used as the only power source. So e.g. nuclear power plants are still needed to back them up.

I think it is very rational to build as much power plants that are cheap to run. And back it up with nuclear or other power plants that are expensive to run but which can cover for time when the production of renewables is low.

> The tech community must shift its admiration back toward reproducible results and away from this “trust-me-bro” culture.

Well said, in my opinion.

Famous last words.

> the tool it uses to interface with the database doesn't have those capabilities

Fair enough. It can e.g. use a DB user with read-only privileges or something like that. Or it might sanitize the allowed queries.

But there may still be some way to drop the database or delete all its data which your tool might not be able to guard against. Some indirect deletions made by a trigger or a stored procedure or something like that, for instance.

The point is, your tool might be relatively safe. But I would be cautious when saying that it is "100 %" safe, as you claim.

That being said, I think that your point still stands. Given safe enough interfaces between the LLM and the other parts of the system, one can be fairly sure that the actions performed by the LLM would be safe.

There are two main issues with such an application that I can think of:

1. Addressing. How would the nodes know where to send the packet? But I assume there are ways to deal with that which come from the P2P networks like Tor.

2. Edge connectivity. Even if it would be possible to communicate between the regular nodes of the network, those packets would not be able to reach the outside world. So, from abroad or even from the out of town, they would still appear offline. Some kind of edge bridges would probably be necessary to reach connectivity with the outside world.