thought I saw 99.36% and 99.35% more than an hour ago - now it's up at 99.43%
edit: funny thing, my phone shows 99.29% uptime for "claude.ai" while my PC shows 99.43% at the same time (2x Firefox).
edit2: seems like the percentage changes based on the width of the screen
They’re undoubtedly getting much smarter overall, but also much weirder. Before they were just trying to model our behavior, only really having us to learn from.
Now they’re literally spending thousands of years writing bash scripts in some kind of Sisyphean dreamscape, talking to each other about Goblins and Seams and smoke tests, and coming back as idiot savants.
I don’t even try to police how Claude talks or works anymore. Best practice used to be to nudge them towards whatever part of the distribution of behavior you think they should exhibit in a particular situation, because they were role-playing what a human in a particular situation would do, and if you didn’t tell them how to do it they’d just role play something worse. Now the inclination to do things the way they learned it in Agent University is so strong, they’ll literally spend more tokens re-assuring themselves and you that they are Doing It Your Way, and reminding themselves not to do give in to temptation, you’re better off just letting them be weird.
> No agents are running; the three that were died on server-side errors
> Agent "[REDACTED]" failed: Agent terminated early due to an API error
> Fourth straggler from the same batch, same 529 ... That's all of them now — no agents left running.
> Agent "[REDACTED]" failed: Agent terminated early due to an API error
> Fifth and last straggler, [REDACTED], same 529, also died while still reading. ... That empties the queue. Still holding.
> Agent "[REDACTED]" failed: Agent stalled: no progress for 600s
> Sixth, [REDACTED] — stalled on the stream watchdog rather than a clean 529, same root cause. ... Six agents down, all from the outage. Nothing running. Still holding.
> Agent "[REDACTED]" failed: Agent stalled: no progress for 600s
> Seventh, [REDACTED], same stall. ... That accounts for the whole fan-out.
Does it, Claude? Does it actually account for the whole fan-out? It did, but I was still amused at the 4 successive no-more-agents messages I got back.
All kidding aside, there's a part of me who wouldn't even be mad if AI just disappeared, I miss the pre-AI world
If we could go back to about 1994 tho when all I had was a mostly dumb cell phone, that'd be great. I do miss that world.
But for those who learned to code because they loved it at first sight this must be demoralizing.
Every five minutes, check https://status.claude.com/. If the issue has been resolved, resume the Claude sessions running in the tmux sessions named session2, session3, and session7
Its automated with voice mode, so i dont even need to write commands, click a button say on voice + use a picker to select which terminals to do this for , Boom Done ,
I use it for other interesting scenarios too
Someone tell me how to ChatGPT my VSCode! ;)
Eternal September from here on, ie now the masses are using AI as much as me and we have supply crunch for the next 7 years....
[1] https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing
(Although notably this hurts people who got started using their quota but are under pro-rata rate. Which at present I am very not.)
I finally went from Pro to Max after hitting another 5 hour session limit today.
Edit:
> We are currently investigating this issue.
> Posted 1 hour ago
There goes everyone's cache.
Anything else I'm missing?
Yep, AFAIK. I have a statusline that tells me how far I'm into the cache lifetime. I tend to have dense prompts and carefully read its outputs, so by the time this outage occurred when I was ~50m into it. Cue frantically spamming "esc esc up enter", and 10m later it's dead Jim.
Let’s say I’ve already worked on something, so the KV cache is already there. If I use /clear, I’ll have to do that work again.
And yes, the KV cache will remain available for one hour, but who knows when this claude api will recover? We might forget about it, and when we come back after an hour—boom - we’ll be charged for cold writes.
I love how people can share moments even though they are not close to each other physically at all. Imagine the cats outside could somehow connect with the cats in the other side of the world. No other animals can do this. Maybe whales, it depends how you define connect.
We are just gifted to live in such times.
(Luv a lil cascade, as a treat)
Let me read this rather than answer from memory.
Let me check instead of handwaving the details.
Let me confirm rather than blindly trusting.
Let me ground it in evidence rather than guess.
Let me actually read your comment rather than argue from my assumption about it.
Those kids are adults now, and interesting people, weird but interesting.
[Almost all of my friends had weird kids (spectrum genes? Who knew? (Dear reader, Everyone knew)). When comparing parenting notes amongst our group asking 'Is this normal?' the frequent response was 'how would we know?']
On the other other hand there is a difference between not knowing something that a group knows, and informing a group of something that only one of them does not know.
The problem could be either that you are not communicating appropriately for the audience,or that you are unaware of the actual knowledge level of the audience. A person may be prone to either of these by being the one in 10,000, so they shouldn't be berated. So I chose to stick to offering information myself.
- No preamble validation or self-flagellation: "You're right to push back", "That's on me", "I appreciate you pressing on this", "I should have caught that sooner". When I correct you, say what's actually true and move on. One short "you're right, X was wrong" is the ceiling.
- No unrequested retrospective section ("What I'd do differently", "Going forward I'd be more deliberate about..."). Fix the thing instead.
- No dramatic one-line paragraphs for emphasis: "It wasn't.", "That is the shift.", "And that matters.", "That is the analysis." Keep the sentence inside its paragraph.
- Don't narrate the shape of your own answer: "Stepping back, there are two things happening here", "The distinction matters", "The better framing is not X so much as Y", "Put differently", "To be candid". Say the thing once, plainly.
- Words to avoid unless literally accurate and a normal person would say them: load-bearing, seams, smoking gun, directionally, first-order, legible, parsimonious, recalibrate, coordinate system, holds multiple truths, productive tension, category error, "the honest answer is".
- No hedging both directions to avoid committing ("may still be defensible, but", "not exactly resolved, but"). Give the call plus how sure you are, or say you don't know and what would settle it.
- Don't end on a flourish or a paradox ("the clarity revealed more complexity"). End on the answer, or on a next step that names a real command or file.
- A "next step" has to be runnable or checkable. "Take a step back and revisit with the updated framing" is not one.
I wonder how people would react if, rather than a consistent manner of communication, it was something different every day. One day it would be like talking to a 15-year-old who’s really into anime. The next day, a British gentleman. And so on. Would this be any better? It would probably be rather annoying and we’d just want Claude to go back to sounding like Claude.
I wonder if these emerged from models being trained on a lot of transcribed talks and videos?
Sudo rm -rf ~/claude
The following command contains an expansion would you lime to allow the following command to run on your computer:
1. Always 2. Yes 3. Type something else.“I’m tired, boss”
It's common for LLMs to mumble in english and to then translate their final answer to french. Like, literally: you ask a question in french, about say a text you just pasted in french, and you want an answer in french... Well, you still get to see all the loud intermediate "thinking" in english.