Fentanyl is made by Mexican cartels from Chinese precursors. I suppose there aren't many Mexico's with massive organized crime networks in Europe to pour deadly drugs into their countries.
Guinea-bissau is basically a narco state, much more so than Mexico, and has deep ties with latin-american cartels. They transport their drugs in the sahel with the help of jihadists. The same jihadists get funding from moroccans to smuggle their hash. These networks got deep networks within Europe (e.g. in Belgium and Netherlands). It might not be as bad yet but could turn worse quickly.
No one "does" fentanyl, it's a highly addictive additive that is secretly added to other things. Even so, 50,000 - 70,000 Americans per year die to it (more than suicide and gun violence many other things).
This is an "American" thing because fent primarily comes from Mexican cartels (Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation).
They buy precursors from China, they produce it in labs in Mexico, and then smuggle it into America where they kill 50,000 to 70,000 Americans per year.
Not getting political here -- but what would you think if organized crime in a neighboring country was murdering 50,000 to 70,000 of your countrymen per year?
- While drugs laced with fentanyl are also a problem, lots of people _do_ knowingly consume fentanyl. In fact, it has replaced Heroin in the US 'market', for example. It is also a contaminant in other drugs (cocaine, meth), due to how easy it is for fentanyl to stay in crevices, etc. It is also 'snuck in' to counterfeit pills, which is the only aspect you mention.
- The traffickers physically moving fentanyl into the country are overwhelmingly Americans. Pre 2019 traffickers used to get this straight from China, but stricter controls in China have shifted things to be staged in Mexico instead.
- The demand and traffickers are still largely American, and it is a "symbiotic" problem. US drug demand is empowering Mexican cartels and making everyday Mexicans less safe (the cartels also get most of their guns from the US). At the same time, powerful Mexican cartels mean it is much easier to "stage" fentanyl in Mexico then import it into the US than the older model of importing it directly from China.
While I agree that "murder" is the wrong word, there is an angle that you are missing.
Drug dealers will lace "normal" drugs with fentanyl. It gives a "different buzz". The customer knows they are buying "normal" drugs, and there is no quality control, so lacing happens. If the dealer messes up how much they lace, it is easy to add too much (because a small amount t of fentanyl goes a long way), and your customer ODs.
I’ve heard from an HSI friend that a lot more of the fentanyl deaths happen from accidental exposure in their drugs from shared surfaces. For example, somebody buying cocaine that was cut up on a table that was previously used to cut up fent and not properly sanitized.
So if you bought a bottle of water, and inside of that water was a poison that kills you, intentionally added by a criminal because it makes them more profit, that's not murder?
Those people were doing a line of coke, they had no idea they were about to overdose on an opioid.
Well, that depends on the legal definition of murder where you live.
In lots of places, intent matters. You said the pill was added with the intent to make more money. If there was no intent to kill, then in lots of places that isn't murder but might be some other kind of criminal homicide.
For example, people at Ford made the decision to sell the Pinto with a dangerous defect to make more money and people died as a direct consequence of that product decision. The people who made that decision were not charged with murder (or anything as far as I recall).
I've known homeless people and desperate addicts. Many of them would deal in whatever, to feed themselves. That is wildly different from "They would enjoy kill a stranger."
No. But I find it strange that people categorically say that a drug dealer never would intentionally kill a buyer. They are violent criminals dealing in poison. They are not perfectly rational businessmen who would never do a thing which could hurt future profits.
That I would see as extreme recklessness leading to somebody dying, might be called murder in the US. I wasn't aware this is happening on a larger scale. The solution could be to vote for politicians that legalize drugs so users can get them safely
I would argue that fent became an issue only after the oxycontin et al. peddling was slowly curtailed; together with fent precursors becoming absurdly cheap to procure and process, compared to other opiates. Users originally hooked on the pills needed a replacement, and as suddenly the chemistry got much cheaper, everyone switched to fent. The physical volume of illicit substance you need to smuggle is also lower with fentanyl, so I'm sure that would have played into this trend as well.
If you want to find where to point the finger to, the systems that let prescription opiates be prescribed with such reckless abandon is a good superficial target. Getting political here - if you want to find the very root cause of all this, I would present the institutions that prevent the implementation or otherwise erode preexisting social safety-nets as the culpable party.
It is typically laced into other drugs. A small amount of fentanyl is highly powerful, so if you mix it into heroine, you get a different buzz. But if you (a drug dealer, not a chemist) mess up and drop too much, then your customer will accidentally OD.
Tiny bits of fentanyl are added to a variety of recreational drugs used extensively by all kinds of people, rich and poor. They add it to cocaine, heroin, meth and even marijuana. They imitate oxy, percocet, vicodin, xanax and adderal using fent laced pills as well.
As much as 20% of Americans use these recreational drugs. Europeans on average use recreational drugs like half as much as Americans, maybe 10% use them.
They’re not coming here and forcibly injecting people. Maybe we should be asking ourselves why so many are choosing the oblivion offered by drugs similar to and including fentanyl.
The only reason they’re selling it is because people are buying it.
> Not getting political here -- but what would you think if organized crime in a neighboring country was murdering 50,000 to 70,000 of your countrymen per year?
I'd blame myself for giving them that market, and then I'd start pushing hard for a drug policy that actually makes sense, as opposed trying to continue a policy of drug prohibition which has spent the last 100+ years [0] completely failing to do anything but give money to criminals whilst having almost no effect on actual drug consumption.
The government's job is to protect its taxpayers. If the taxpayers have a demand for drugs, which is clearly the case with the US, then the government should stop cosplaying a pearl-clutching 19th-century Victorian housewife and start regulating the drug trade properly, the way it does with alcohol and cigarettes.
Will this solve all problems? No. So long there is misery in the world, there will be people trying to escape that misery.
But at least American opiate addicts will have fewer overdoses, and therefore hopefully contribute more to tax revenue.
When doing the right thing regarding things like addiction are tried in the US, there seems to be a habit of learning the wrong lesson. Attempts to apply the successful Portuguese model have failed because decriminalisation by itself is just an enabler of what _really_ helps, which is all the follow-up support.
And don't get me started on how public health interventions in general seem to end up treated as moral hazards or wasteful in the US, even when they're _saving_ money...
I don't think "bug" is the correct term. They put a feature behind a feature flag, and feature flags don't work if you turn them off (via telemetry). That's "Working As Designed™".
It's clearly an unintended interaction. Nobody intended for the telemetry switch to control whether it reads AGENTS.md (hence mpoteat's apologetic response). Whether you consider that to be a "bug" or not really wasn't the point of my message.
Clearly not Claude-speak, see the rest of the message. "Rollout artifact" just means "an artifact of how we rolled this change out" which maybe isn't proper English but the message was obviously not written by Claude. Upgrade your Claudish detection
Developer comms are very important. I've often "fixed" something that was working exactly as the designer made it. It certainly wasn't a bug in my work though. I've worked in places where we call this a "design omission" ;)
I believe the that the companies who claim to not train on my data are more likely to not train on my data than the companies who refuse to even claim they won't.
Also why Meta gets a +1, just charge less money on the training path.
I’m not sure that follows. You’re assuming that all those claims have the same weight, without considering the size, jurisdiction, reputation or even the general vibe of the company making that claim.
If you factor that in, then there are clearly different tiers: one you can trust, and one that may well just be saying that to increase market share with little reputational or legal consequences if they are found to be lying.
Yes I sometimes think the "don't train on my data" is actually a good signal for "this data/person is probably better to train on because they want to keep something private". The whole copyright system should have stopped these guys from training on everyone's data and it did not, if you think they care about the privacy checkbox I think you're dreaming personally, based on their past behavior.
I have been writing an internal code review tool that is a bit maximalist. I created subagents for many internal domains and technologies we manage, with prompts focused on best practices, common problems, owasp guidelines, etc), a separate tier of wider band subagents (design, rollout, security/privacy), and a final agent at the top orchestrating and combining. I also use adversarial validator passes against all findings.
Right now, Fable 5.1 delivers incredible reviews. Opus 5 delivers good reviews. These agents are finding really impressive issues that humans just don't have the attention span to track down. My reviewer has a very impressive signal to noise ratio at this point, after half a year of iterating and improving. (I use a lot of Opus high, Opus medium for less critical tickets/domains, Fable 5.1 high for critical domains and all of the issue validators, and even Fable 5.1 xhigh for my design agent, whose job it is to think about the project at a high level and provide the kind of high level tech design review that AI notoriously can't do well)
I'm testing Astra so I don't have strong opinions yet. I've also done extensive testing of the same skill and subagent pattern in opencode/omp using GLM 5.3, Kimi K3 max, Deepseek V4 pro, Deepseek V4.1 flash, Qwen 3.8 2.4T max, and others.
My experience is that open weights models find between 1/4 to 1/2 of what Fable/Opus stack can find, and often miss the most critical issues. I work where privacy isn't just good behavior, it's enforced by law, and the Fable/Opus stack has found privacy leaks that the openweights stacks don't find.
You can imagine that paying for these Claude runs isn't cheap, each one can eat 25-33% of my 5 hour limit. I am quite desperate for openweights models to be competitive, but at the end of the day, the biggest limit here isn't the price difference between GLM 5.3 max (my current best-in-class choice for open weights, offering Kimi k3 performance for like half the price), it's the cost to the business for shipping lower quality.
Can't wait to dig in more with Astra, I just haven't iterated much on my skill port to codex yet.
One criticsm I have for the article, that is important for my own work, is not simply comparing "bugs found" because these agents can find endless reams of lows and nitpicks that are just ~worthless hardening. I'd be much more interested to see how many critical/high/medium's each test found, not "overall bug count". I also think review is about A LOT more than "finding bugs"...
And remember, Elon only granted that so he wouldn't be (rightfully) banned from Google. At first you couldn't view anything, then Google delisted X because it only indexes public pages, then Elon conceded you can view the direct thing you linked to, and then Google relisted it.
Solar only became "economical" (read: profitable) because a socialist economy dumped a huge amount of money into scaling it up without requiring it to be "economical". It could have been half a century or more ago if we actually cared.
Nuclear was not stopped by the environmentalists, it was stopped by the fact that it cost 4X more than coal at the time. You claim that solar wasn't profitable in the west, thus it didn't take off, surely you can also see that nuclear wasn't profitable in the west, thus it didn't take off as well.
The same country that invested the time and money to make solar profitable is also investing the time and money to make nuclear profitable, with nuclear reactors entering mass production...
It was never about "economical", it was about a system being mature enough to make long term investments. Ours simply can't do that anymore.
> Nuclear was not stopped by the environmentalists, it was stopped by the fact that it cost 4X more than coal at the time.
A big part of that is the insane culture of safety around nuclear. In a sane field like highway engineering or healthcare, you come up with the statistical value for a human life (or a statistical value for a quality adjusted life year), and then use that to make decisions about eg how much money to invest to make your highway a tiny bit safer.
Nuclear is forced to act as if the statistical value of a human life is pretty much infinity. While coal is allowed a finite and rather low effective value for a human life.
> It could have been half a century or more ago if we actually cared.
Interesting. What makes you think so?
Btw, just because China made solar cheap with huge amounts of effort doesn't mean that was necessarily the best use of those resources ex ante.
Just like going to the moon with Apollo wasn't necessarily a good idea. Nor do the wonders of computers justify world war 2.
It's nice to call it "politics, ignorance and greed" but those three are just "Capitalism".
Our system is doing exactly what it is designed to do. Nuclear reactors were never profitable compared to coal or gas, so it never succeeded in strongly capitalist societies, only seeing great success in socialist economies where the people can invest outside of a profit motive.
It's actually quite funny that socialism is saving the day. The mega-capitalist countries turned their backs on nuclear and solar because they were less profitable than gas and coal. But socialist China invested anyway, and now China is mass producing nuclear reactors and every layer of the solar stack. China produces 50% of all nuclear reactors, 90% of all solar panels, 90% of all battery systems for solar storage.
Now that a socialism-based society has proven market viability, suddenly the greedy capitalists want in. But they're decades behind and don't have the private debt appetite to compete.
Womp womp... At least someone is leading the energy revolution.
The term that Anthropic is now using is "mannered prose". If the creator of this example simply prompted "Remove all mannered prose" then the entire experiment would suddenly become normal sounding. In the fable 5.1 prompting guide, they have a longer prompt for removing mannered prose too if needed. I find it works on Astra as well.
This post isn't convincing me. I spent so much time meticulously organizing my techno box. I bought a back of the door shoe holder for tech. Every wire, charger, usb key, web cam, airline earbud, everything. It's been beautifully organized for years.
It's been beautifully organized and useless for so many years that it's all junk now. Nothing is using USB A/B. The airline earbuds are as much trash today as they were then. The usb keys are very old and untrustworthy. Even the USB-C wires are all out of spec, won't charge modern phones, etc. The old webcams look like true trash compared to the modern ones. Etc etc
And this post is basically "hoard all this garbage because in 10 years you might need one thing"? I'm sorry, but "buy that one thing for a few bucks off amazon the one time you need it" is looking a lot more attractive than "meticulously maintain a tech hoard to save $3 on a single use wire"
In engineering terms, it feels like my tech hoard is an automation I spent two weeks writing, for code that only ever runs once every ten years.
Yes, I guess its a balance - the inconvenience of sorting through odd-shaped defunct USB standards vs actually needing one of those weird cables for an ancient camera in 10 years time.
I naturally have the ~< £ from AZ mindset, but I try to challenge that by re-using avoiding waste. It doesn't always work (and there's a lot of eventual waste in those hundreds of zip-lock bags).
reply