this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2026
681 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

89409 readers
4244 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
681
Anthropic confirms new Claude Code limits to prevent game cloning — users report Opus 5.5 is also actively blocking reverse engineering tasks (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 day ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
159 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

My how fast the AI tech bros move to protect corporations but don't move to protect the average coder, artists, writers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Anthropic has a profitable business

You sure 'bout that?

[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

There S1 claims so, but, also, it’s financials cut off… suspiciously right as a bunch of pre payments for their services came in, and before they deferred payments for compute went out.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 4 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Except that it doesn't? They claimed 33bn in revenue, but they had 104bn net loss. So no, they were not profitable. In their IPO they literally claim to not be profitable and that they don't ensure they'll be profitable "in the future". Not the near future, just the future as a whole.

[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

So they were claiming to have been net profitable on certain things in q2, which again, more to the point, is them trying to shine a turd and make it look like they’ve got a future.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 1 points 2 hours ago

I get your point but their argument is basically moving the goalpost. The important thing is if the company is net profitable, and they're not.

[–] captcha@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

I heard, big part of those losses are the debts paid in stock, so when their stock rises the debts rise and the difference is written up as losses.

Not an economist though, so I might be completely wrong