I'm happy that Python is getting more money, but with it being right after Anthropic's "biggest" faux pas so far (regardless of actual lack of issues stemming from that)... If it is recovery for that, it feels both that they could have donated money at any time before now, and that, if they are planning to ever have a faux pas or gaffe in the future, that there is more they are willing to donate, but just not until another event happens.
Both feel mildly frustrating to me. If it is the case, then the best thing I can hope for is Anthropic to have as many mistakes as possible in the future, right?
[edited for clarity] I'd assume, if not coincidence, it was planned to coincide with the timing of doing something that would be seen as negative, both of which were probably decided months ago.
This comment is spot on. At best, these deals take many weeks and months, even under perfect conditions. Even approvals can take weeks or months, depending on when boards meet, and when people are back from vacations. Anthropic's "faus pas" didn't move the needle.
what am I missing in terms of recent Anthropic faux pas? I'm not finding any recent particular issues. Not a company I would touch with a 20 foot pole for lots of reasons, but is there something new?
People generally don’t like when the rules are changed, even (and sometimes, especially) when you didn’t enforce some rule and start enforcing it, rather than changing the rules.
I certainly don’t think it’s connected to this donation at all.
In my opinion, its very small, very very small, https://archaeologist.dev/artifacts/anthropic. However at the very least it has lead to a sour experience for multiple people who are vocal about it.
Summer | 5 hours ago
foss-washing to compensate for prior events?
nedbat | 4 hours ago
A company depending on the Python world doing the right thing and supporting the PSF?
Summer | 4 hours ago
I'm happy that Python is getting more money, but with it being right after Anthropic's "biggest" faux pas so far (regardless of actual lack of issues stemming from that)... If it is recovery for that, it feels both that they could have donated money at any time before now, and that, if they are planning to ever have a faux pas or gaffe in the future, that there is more they are willing to donate, but just not until another event happens.
Both feel mildly frustrating to me. If it is the case, then the best thing I can hope for is Anthropic to have as many mistakes as possible in the future, right?
nedbat | 3 hours ago
It seems really unlikely to me that this donation would have been scrambled together in the last 24 hours to compensate for a misstep.
Summer | 3 hours ago
[edited for clarity] I'd assume, if not coincidence, it was planned to coincide with the timing of doing something that would be seen as negative, both of which were probably decided months ago.
yossarian | 2 hours ago
Most companies, including extremely wealthy ones, don’t drop $1.5M at the drop of a hat. It doesn’t seem like a parsimonious explanation.
jefftriplett | an hour ago
This comment is spot on. At best, these deals take many weeks and months, even under perfect conditions. Even approvals can take weeks or months, depending on when boards meet, and when people are back from vacations. Anthropic's "faus pas" didn't move the needle.
eyesinthefire | 4 hours ago
what am I missing in terms of recent Anthropic faux pas? I'm not finding any recent particular issues. Not a company I would touch with a 20 foot pole for lots of reasons, but is there something new?
steveklabnik | 3 hours ago
People generally don’t like when the rules are changed, even (and sometimes, especially) when you didn’t enforce some rule and start enforcing it, rather than changing the rules.
I certainly don’t think it’s connected to this donation at all.
Summer | 4 hours ago
In my opinion, its very small, very very small, https://archaeologist.dev/artifacts/anthropic. However at the very least it has lead to a sour experience for multiple people who are vocal about it.
ag | 3 hours ago
PSF could've stayed in consideration for the $1.5M from the NSF
nedbat | 3 hours ago
The PSF made the right decision to turn down that grant. The terms were unreasonable and the risk too great.
simonw | 2 hours ago
Would you put your non-profit in a position where this administration could change its mind and demand $1.5m back from you at any time?
frankwiles | an hour ago
They could have added a zero to it and it would STILL be the right thing to turn it down.