A year ago Anthropic was losing billions per year. I'm sure that if it had listed and then collapsed everyone would've gone "first they run around saying how AI needs to benefit society and then they dump a cash-burning company on pension funds"

But pension funds are already invested in them through the VC funds. The only difference is (more) people would be able to invest in Anthropic without paying management fees to middlemen.

Most 401ks and pension funds do not invest in pre IPO companies, this is just blatant misinformation

> Most 401ks and pension funds do not invest in pre IPO companies

Pensions do, individuals don’t.

“Less than 1% of the $14 trillion in assets in the defined contribution retirement system is invested in private markets, compared with approximately 24% for U.S. public pension funds and 17% for private pension funds as of 2023” [1].

[1] https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/the-role-of-private-mar...

“Private markets” is not the same thing as pre-IPO companies

What market do you thinking pre-IPO companies occupy?

Like, I can tell you definitively pensions are pretty broadly invested in Anthropic specifically through a number of funds.

Pre-IPO companies are a subset of private companies, but most private companies will never IPO.

Who said anything about 401ks?

some pension funds definitely do

Aren't they still losing billions per year?

Even if they are losing money, if they went from $10b to $2t in evaluation, that's still $1.99t in value that has accrued to insiders rather than the general public.

Better to dump it when valuation is low instead of inflated.

To be pedantic, the proofs would be correct, they would just be proving the wrong thing.

To address what you actually meant: it's possible but specifications are way easier to verify.

sounds like we should introduce a land tax :)

Do you have any sources? OP claims that it *also* affects Open VSX

Dworken from Anthropic here: This only impacted the extension as it was hosted on the Cursor marketplace. It did not impact the official VS Code extension marketplace or OpenVSX. Users of Claude Code on VS Code are not impacted by this issue.

But the report OP cites at https://phorion.io/blog/offical-claude-code-vsx-compromise/ doesn't make a claim about Visual Studio Marketplace, only "the official Claude Code for VS Code extension bundle on the Cursor Marketplace"

Three different marketplaces have been mentioned in this discussion:

1. The Cursor Marketplace (never heard of this one, it’s possibly a custom marketplace hard-wired into Cursor, which is architecturally a VS Code fork?)

2. The Visual Studio marketplace, hard-wired into VS Code

3. Open VSX

If I understand this thread correctly, then #1 and #3 had compromised versions, and nobody has made a statement yet about the status of #2.

Cursor maintains a mirror of OpenVSX... Kinda. Except they inject some of their own extensions in it. But it's mostly a mirror.

Edit: Cursor is apparently stating now that the tampered files were only on their mirror not OpenVSX.

I assumed they meant "also" as in "besides Cursor marketplace", which seems to be the highlight of the article. Although you raise a valid point and I've edited the parent comment.

Better tested software duh

While, in general, I would agree, I fail to see how this point is relevant to the situation at hand.

What is being argued is that, currently, there's a hiring crisis across many industries, that affects even highly qualified people.

What you said would be relevant only if applied to today's market, not to the early 2000s.

Just to clarify: the *team* of Deno is joining cloudlflare. Deno as a project is being discontinued instead.

> I was initially skeptical that this would work. And if it did, it would require hours to complete with dead ends along the way.

> But it turns out it completed the task easily in 40 minutes with 0 deaths and minimal complications.

Reading fail! I re-read the conclusion a few times. I just needed to re-read the following paragraph!

First of all, the fact that the article talks about "speeding up" the rust compiler doesn't automatically mean that the compiler is "slow"[0].

Now, is rustc slower than e.g. clang? by how much? why?

Those are different (and complicated) questions. It really depends on what you're compiling, but I'd say rustc can be 1-5x slower (maybe more at times?).

The reasons are many and varied, but in general rust compilation is slower because the compiler is doing way more things compared to C (monomorphization, complex trait resolution + type inference, borrow checker..)

[0]: Also I'd argue that "slow" without a concrete point of reference is a meaningless term in this context.

> the fact that the article talks about "speeding up" the rust compiler doesn't automatically mean that the compiler is "slow"

Well, if it weren't "slow" for some definition of "slow", nobody would bother speeding it up, would they?

The go compiler is considered fast, yet Google spends effort speeding up the go compiler. Not to the same extent, but Google has a lot of go code, so it does make a difference.

I'm surprised you didn't get any. I wouldn't have any issues in saying that I don't.

Yes I don't believe in souls either, and I would assumed that those who believe eg due to religion can just as easily state they do.