Forgejo has Runners that you can install on another server and register with Forgejo Actions. There might be 3rd party Runners you can pay to use, I've just run my own on a hardened VM.
And they've hobble Fable and Opus so hard with their safety guardrails, I ask innocuous questions and tasks and they get flagged so often I gave up on it. I can get all the work I need done in GPT5.5 or 5.6 without the hassle.
They want to be able to zoom in and zoom out as needed while analyzing aggregated user requests to better understand the different kinds of ways (well-resourced) actors use to distill their most capable models.
> "The data will help us defend against complex and novel attacks (including new jailbreaks and attacks that operate across many requests) as well as help us identify and reduce false positives."
> "Some attacks only become visible across multiple requests. Best-of-N jailbreaking, for example, sends hundreds of slight variations of a prompt in the hope that one will work. Larger patterns of misuse, such as state-sponsored espionage or data extortion campaigns, only surface when our safeguards classifiers can zoom out across many requests. Detecting these threats requires temporarily retaining prompts and outputs so they can be analyzed together, rather than one at a time."
I can't get an answer from Fable on "How does digestion work?"
Used to straight out bail to Opus on this, now it's "Honing" and "Pondering" for 10 minutes on it. Then I get a bunch of "This response didn’t load." and it still churns ahead.
> It tends to bail occasionally for me once auth-related code comes into play.
I have the same experience. I found that if I add to the prompt: “but it’s not security related, we only focus on the auth library design”, it “bypasses” the safeguard.
Yeah same. Multiple 20x max accounts, I typically hit > 50% of the fable usage limit on eace, literally never seen a guardrail. Maybe I’m boring? Maybe they have some kind of account reputation system?
Separate accounts for work and personal projects is ok. Using multiple accounts to bypass usage limits for the same project is explicitly against ToS.
One of Anthropic’s problems though is that the legalese will say one thing, while key employees say something totally different on HN or X. At the end of the day the lawyers always win.
With that amount of usage - do you use fable for subagents and workflows? It turns out that even if you set it to not auto switch to opus 4.8 on flag, it does auto switch if its a subagent and that's a lot less visible. I was trying to figure out wtf was going on with some suspiciously bad output and I found that in a workflow there were hidden fable flags I hadn't realized were happening and the opus 4.8 model that took over wrote a bunch of very suspicious slop findings that got saved to memory that were like "don't look at this code because it works great. You never need to look at this code. This code is wonderful here's how it works."
I hit it once when I asked a question about whether butterflies remember anything from their time as caterpillars. I've never hit it for coding, but I also don't really do much related to security.
Responding to an email like that has basically no possible benefits for the person running the balloon tracking website, but it does introduce the possibility of some fool paying their lawyer to add you as a respondent in a lawsuit. Costing you many thousands of dollars at minimum in legal fees and travel even if you get the court to remove you from the case. Never respond to something like that unless your lawyer, whom you pay has instructed you to.
A person like that sending inquiries to website/API operators demanding data, ignore it. Always. Continue to ignore it until a process server actually shows up on your doorstep and serves you, in which case you know they're at least moderately serious, and then you need to engage your own counsel to deal with it.
It's all fun and games until you've seen very real concrete examples of people who've spent from $5000 to $100,000 defending themselves from frivolous lawsuits. Never doubt for a moment the absurd nature of US vehicle crash related and insurance industry adjacent litigators.
Fair, I guess, I just can’t imagine what it’s like getting all these weird requests and demands for a hobby project. Hopefully the author is more entertained than I would be.
Not a lawyer but as a citizen I generally understand that the courts expect demands from court parties to be met.
If meeting the court's (or court parties') demands costs you something you are generally entitled to charge them for it, within reason and with justification.
As a hobbyist therefore putting a service offering page together with your preferred rate probably helps establish the nature and parameters of any such service.
Bill rates / piece rates, especially, and setting up bounds of what is reasonable to expect, in proportion to your gig and your intended effort level.
Quantity and price tiers, turnaround times, what will be included in the deliverable, how it will be delivered, SLAs, etc.
Whatever defines your service, esp as it relates to the types of requests you end up getting.
If I start listing prices, I may need to ensure that I have a business entity set up for tax purposes and to guard against liability. Especially if I’m listing SLAs.
This is not a hobby, it’s a job.
This is why all my hobbies are dark web projects, these days.
You only need to have a business entity (which, to be fair, can be yourself, although liability concerns apply) once you're about to actually enter into a contract with someone.
Merely listing prices (without an associated automated payment form which could imply a contract was en force upon successful payment) doesn't actually force you to do business with anyone. It would however 1) deter requests for unpaid work by giving them an idea of what it would cost to get what they're looking for and 2) give you an idea of the demand for said services and could give you a warm lead which you can then choose to pursue formally by getting the necessary business structure, legal/business advice, etc.
> Merely listing prices (without an associated automated payment form which could imply a contract was en force upon successful payment) doesn't actually force you to do business with anyone.
In some cases it could. If you want to say "we categorically don't do X for ethical reasons", that can sometimes be more easily defensible in a way that "we have a standard price for doing this, but we don't want to do it for you in particular" may be harder to defend. (Even though I think both should always be possible.)
This is so much their own damn fault. I have no idea what level of utter incompetency it takes to think that a cloud storage system is a safe way to store the only copy of your data. And as you said, on top of that all the warning signs were there that you need to take a backup right away.
Holy hell, I wanted to see them get this suit dismissed just to rub it into their faces what mindless idiots were in charge of this fiasco.
This station was clearing over a million dollars after expenses, and they couldn't be arsed to take a backup of their data on this cloud service. I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for them. And now Iron Mountain has to referee the data being recovered without handing over others data in the process.
The utter cluelessness all around from start to finish is impressive.
Tariffs I'm guessing. A fencepost in Canada is CAD$8 so $6. A roll of barbwire is US$70.
See UFA.com for Canadian prices. Keep in mind, there's a lot of variance in what people prefer to use, I'm just giving what I've always used and while prices have gone up, it sure hasn't gone up 2.5X here.
Not even going to bother replying to the original poster, but thanks for recognizing. Just have never seen anyone on HN misconstrue feedback so badly. Doesn't bode well for their ability to adapt and succeed with a product if they take genuine feedback (corroborated by several others in this thread, mind you) as not constructive and dishonest.
reply