[HN Gopher] Anthropic, please make a new Slack
___________________________________________________________________
Anthropic, please make a new Slack
Author : georgewfraser
Score : 131 points
Date : 2026-03-06 19:52 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.fivetran.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.fivetran.com)
| anonymouscaller wrote:
| Slack is in no way a great program (source: use it daily for
| work), but it seems to me that it works as intended, and
| developers can already extend it with bots/AI agents. Plus,
| Claude as an agent is already installable to Slack.
|
| For compliance, my company already has a tool that scrapes all
| slack messages, and archives them for a required amount of years.
| I'm at a small company, so I assume large corporations have
| already refined this process.
|
| What problem does this solve?
| georgewfraser wrote:
| You can only access public channel data, you can't even access
| that at scale, and Claude needs to be more natively integrated
| in ways that Slack will never allow.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| Slack is $45/user/month
|
| Soon you'll be able to write, host, and maintain a fully
| customizable version for probably 20k/month
|
| If you have a lot of employees this makes sense
| ellg wrote:
| If people wanted to do this theyd be self hosting xmpp
| servers already. No one wants to write and maintain the code
| and infra for things like this, you are grossly
| underestimating the effort involved here.
| ares623 wrote:
| No no it makes sense. Hypothetical scenario: I, a high-
| level employee at a company just convinced my boss (or did
| we convince each other?) to spend $30k/year on Claude/Codex
| enterprise licenses. So far, the productivity gains have
| not been there and we're starting to sweat. So, I propose
| to my boss to build an internal version of $SaaS and call
| it a win. Galaxy brain.
|
| Now some IC somewhere in the company who is at the end of
| his rope and sees the company as a dead end, sees an
| opportunity. Why not advocate for this project, get real
| experience building something greenfield in a brand new
| domain, strengthen their own resume, and finally have a way
| out of their strut? It's not like they're gonna stick
| around maintaining what they built.
| abujazar wrote:
| Most people using Slack, Teams etc. and especially those
| making purchase decisions have no idea what XMPP is and
| what it's capable of. Heck, even Facebook used to federate
| XMPP until they decided to go proprietary. Not in the
| interest of their users, but because it makes the most
| money for its shareholders.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| No they wouldn't have Nobody will write this, AI will write
| the entire thing. You don't need many people to maintain it
| matharmin wrote:
| What features are you using that the $18/user/month plan
| doesn't cover?
| mgraczyk wrote:
| I don't pay for slack any more, I just picked the price of
| their enterprise plan. Large users probably get big
| discounts but it doesn't matter, the cutoff where this
| makes sense financially is probably around 4000 employees
| even at $10/seat
| apublicfrog wrote:
| The article mentions some sort of legal audit reasons that
| the author is of the opinion that any reasonably sized
| company needs. These features are apparently only on the
| expensive plan.
| mogili1 wrote:
| Slack's API rate limits and design make it difficult to
| replicate the data within Slack to a data store that can then
| be used to provide context to AI agents.
|
| You are forced to use their MCP and their realtime search APIs,
| which don't work very well/not performant and may require
| additional licensing.
| andymadson wrote:
| I had high hopes for Claude's interactive app integrations,
| including Slack, but it leaves MUCH to be desired and doesn't
| really solve for agentic access patterns.
| dbt00 wrote:
| "A slack that doesn't suck" doesn't exist, and whoever thinks
| Anthropic of all people are going to build that has no idea how
| this is going to work.
|
| Slack has massive lock in due to cross-organization connections.
| The only way you're going to get people off slack is to build a
| 10x better mode for collaboration than river of shit chat, and
| while such models probably exist, you also have to convince
| people that they are better.
|
| I wish whomever tries this the best of luck.
| pedalpete wrote:
| How google hasn't been able to do this with messenger is beyond
| me.
|
| The external partners on our slack are almost all logged in via
| gmail or other google workspace. We are on google workspace as
| well.
| riwsky wrote:
| _cries in google wave_
| QuercusMax wrote:
| Google decided to build a new chat app every two years
| instead of keeping the good bits of the original chat app
| they had and evolving it. It was endlessly frustrating to me
| when I was at Google. Google's security team ended up banning
| Slack access after several teams started expensing it.
|
| It doesn't seem like building something that works well would
| be that hard; we've had nearly 40 years to learn from IRC,
| AIM, and others. Why can't I run my own chat client that does
| what I want? Oh, because you gotta lock people in. Sucks.
| andoando wrote:
| There was a guy here plugging his slack alternative that was
| heavily AI based and people here loved it. I don't remember the
| name unfortunately
| etchalon wrote:
| Just use one of the many chat products that doesn't have the same
| access limitations as Slack? Or, you know, Vibe code your own.
|
| People are so weird.
| petercooper wrote:
| _Or, you know, Vibe code your own._
|
| Right. If these tools are so good (and they are) there should
| be numerous better-than-Slack apps by now that let you do
| exactly what you want. It doesn't take Anthropic to make it.
| (At our company, we cheated and edited 37signals' Campfire
| instead because we got sick of Slack's ads pushed into our paid
| instance.)
| trjordan wrote:
| A similar argument to OpenAI: https://www.latent.space/p/ainews-
| why-openai-should-build-sl...
| georgewfraser wrote:
| Also true! The most important thing is that the NewSlacks
| commit to interoperability. I think Anthropic has a special
| opportunity to lead the way here, because they have a track
| record of standing by their principles to an extraordinary
| degree.
| coder543 wrote:
| Why on earth would Anthropic commit to interoperability?
|
| That is the company that doesn't interoperate with the
| standard LLM APIs that OpenAI developed, which everyone else
| in the industry has adopted and uses. Whether OpenAI's APIs
| are great or perfect or not, they _are_ the standard that the
| industry has settled on.
|
| That is the same company that refuses to add support for
| AGENTS.md that everyone else in the industry uses, despite
| over 3000 upvotes: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-
| code/issues/6235
|
| Anthropic's Claude Code is also one of the _only_ agentic
| coding CLI tools that isn 't open source.
|
| I'm not sure which principles you think Anthropic stands
| by... but interoperability is not one of their strong suits,
| from what I've seen.
| hungryhobbit wrote:
| Yeah, but now I wouldn't touch anything from that company with
| a ten foot pole, even if they made the best Slack replacement
| ever.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Considering their Palantir partnership, I'm not sure I'd
| touch an Anthropic-designed slack either.
| xemoka wrote:
| This is just crazy. Lets ask the power company to build some
| trains for us. They transport electricity, they _must_ know about
| transporting people. They can power the lines themselves!
|
| If this was so easy, teams wouldn't suck, matrix would be
| everywhere, and discord would be replaced already by the furries
| (as much as stoat is trying).
| j45 wrote:
| Claude Code could absolutely build a chat client in the hands
| of someone who could also build the rest around it.
|
| Slack itself originally ran on irc servers as the back end, and
| I consider it a modern IRC implementation.
| troupo wrote:
| > Claude Code could absolutely build a chat client in the
| hands of someone who could also build the rest around it.
|
| So why can't Anthropic build a CLI client that doesn't flickr
| and doesn't consume 68 GB to run a CLI wrapper on top of
| their API?
| https://x.com/jarredsumner/status/2026497606575398987
| bdangubic wrote:
| that is 1/8 of Slack so it'd be progress :)
| troupo wrote:
| Slack doesn't require nearly as much to run. _And_ Slack
| has about two orders of magnitude more functionality
| senko wrote:
| That's still light years better than Slack.
|
| The thing lags a few seconds _while typing a message_ on a
| 20 core 128g ram machine. That 's with their desktop
| (electron) app. Mercifully, the web app works better.
|
| Still, CC blows it out of water. Slack is that bad.
| brookst wrote:
| Can't != not prioritizing
| paradox460 wrote:
| They are using react for that
|
| Not even joking
| bensyverson wrote:
| Yeah, I have so much less patience for "this should exist"
| posts. In 2026, you could argue that this blog post should
| have come with a link to the repo.
| monsieurbanana wrote:
| I don't want everybody with an idea making a repo. It's
| already hard enough to filter out the slop in github that
| I'm reluctant about using anything built in the past year.
| johnfn wrote:
| Is it really so different than asking the search company back
| in '01 to make a mail client, a browser, a maps app, ...?
| furyofantares wrote:
| Was anyone asking them to do that?
|
| Many people now think they should be broken up.
| rdtsc wrote:
| I didn't ask them. Did you?
| johnfn wrote:
| I think everyone at the time was hoping that Google was
| going to take on their pet project; my friends and I
| certainly were. But I don't think that has to do with my
| comment, which is around a more metaphorical use of the
| word 'ask'.
| xemoka wrote:
| They didn't, no one asked google to do it. It was Paul
| Buchheit's 20% project. Google saw a good thing, solved by
| someone who knew what they were doing and where they wanted
| it to go, and fostered it. Hell, it is what built AdWords and
| ultimately made google the advertising behemoth it is today.
| I don't think this is the same thing...
|
| I see what you are saying though, a business can expand
| beyond it's initial constraints, but I'm not sure that
| chasing prospects like what is described in the OP is really
| all that successful.
| johnfn wrote:
| Why does it seem like everyone is having trouble grasping
| an analogy? GP was saying that as it doesn't make sense for
| a power company to solve trains (because it is out of their
| area of expertise) it doesn't make sense for Anthropic to
| solve Slack (because it is out of their area of expertise).
| My response is that a surprising number of things can fall
| in the area of expertise of a technology company, and this
| has been proven by Google in the past.
|
| Getting hung up over the "asked" phrasing is irrelevant to
| the discussion.
| echelon wrote:
| No. This is a CEO expressing righteous indignation about a
| company that provides (seemingly) little value and has almost
| no competition.
|
| Slack won't open up their data moat to AI, which is shameful.
| And Slack costs way too much. If there were any competitors,
| the price would drop significantly. It's not like chat is a
| hard problem. And Slack's app is an absolute bear.
| troupo wrote:
| > Slack won't open up their data moat to AI, which is
| shameful.
|
| Ah yes. It's shameful that Slack won't open data moat to AI.
| You know, those millions of chats (including private data) by
| people who didn't give consent to this
| echelon wrote:
| > You know, those millions of chats (including private
| data) by people who didn't give consent to this
|
| I'm pretty sure the company you work for owns your work
| chat, and that what you say on company slack constitutes
| business information.
|
| There are a lot of things people don't consent to. Being
| born. Breathing in the air molecules that come from other
| people's bodies. Looking at ugly things. Hearing annoying
| sounds. It'll be okay.
| troupo wrote:
| > I'm pretty sure the company you work for owns your work
| chat, and that what you say on company slack constitutes
| business information.
|
| It does. And a lot of this information is highly
| sensitive. Imagine my company's surprise if Slack would
| not be shameful and would just open up its data moat to
| AI.
|
| > There are a lot of things people don't consent to.
| Being born.
|
| Demagoguery and non sequiturs are not arguments.
|
| But I guess that's what passes for "arguments" for AI
| maximalists.
| recursive wrote:
| > It'll be okay.
|
| Could there ever exist anything that wouldn't be okay?
| What's the difference between something that will be okay
| and something that won't? I'm guessing the things that
| will be okay are the things that might pose an obstacle
| for AI "progress".
| mbb70 wrote:
| >> "almost no competition"
|
| >> "costs way too much"
|
| >> "It's not like chat is a hard problem"
|
| Surely these statements can't all be true. Since Slack is
| expensive and has little competition, I think chat is a
| harder problem than you think.
| nkrisc wrote:
| You're saying it's an easy problem with an expensive solution
| and yet there's no competition? Seems there must be more to
| it because that makes little sense to me.
| uxp100 wrote:
| That's a funny analogy because some electric railway companies
| owned power generation. The one in my town also sold
| electricity to consumers for some time, though most of the
| history I can find online focuses on the rail aspect, which
| makes sense, as they started and ended in the rail business,
| but at some point in the 1890s to 1930s appended "and light" to
| their name.
| xemoka wrote:
| It is funny isn't it? I believe it was the opposite direction
| mostly though, as you say, "railway... and light"; to solve
| their own problems of powering their infrastructure to move
| people, they got into power generation at a time when there
| weren't as many players doing what they needed to run their
| primary business. I'm not sure that power generation getting
| into trains would be as effective. Nor do I think an LLM/AI
| company getting into chat and discussions would be valuable.
| It feels wrong. But hey, "happy" to move on to yet another
| chat program in my life if it's better than what we got...
| just-the-wrk wrote:
| I think this person is asking the most effective entity they
| can find. Anthropic's offerings are better than the
| competition. CC and MCP came out of of their labs, and
| everybody scrambled to copy or adopt them. Their models
| consistently work better than the competition. Whenever a
| feature seems inevitable, they release a subtly polished
| version.
|
| For years I struggled to answer "what company is Apple's
| equivalent in software?" and I think it might be Anthropic.
| cush wrote:
| The title is the issue. They're just asking for group chats
| with Claude
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| It's not crazy, but it is much too soon. Think about GE going
| from lightbulbs to radios to alarm clock radios.
| paradox460 wrote:
| General electric did produce locomotives for decades
| ninjha wrote:
| > matrix would be everywhere
|
| now i know the bar is 1000 feet below the earth with teams but
| matrix is still only maybe a foot or two above the surface
|
| i really want to like it but every few months i try it and it's
| clearly just not ready :(
| godelski wrote:
| Why ask Anthropic?
|
| Why not build on something better like Matrix? Or Signal?[0] Or
| even Keybase?
|
| I really do agree we need to move away from Slack and Discord,
| but I'm also very confused why the call to action is to
| Anthropic. IMO we should really be pushing for open systems so
| that nobody can take it from us. Otherwise we repeat the cycle
| again and again. There's some good protocols to start on. I'd
| also say this is a good reason to make sure that the things you
| work on are hackable. It's how we combine different domains of
| expertise.
|
| [0] see the Molly project, you don't have to use Signal's servers
| j45 wrote:
| Has Matrix improved the ease of use for folks to use it
| independently?
|
| Mattermost, Rocketchat and others have first class packaging
| for quick and easy roll out.
| georgewfraser wrote:
| Claude-in-Slack is a big enough feature to overcome the slack-
| connect network effect. Openness is absolutely key! I wrote
| this post because I hoped that if Anthropic is _already_
| planning to do this I might be able to influence them to make
| open-data part of the plan. But openness by itself isn 't a big
| enough feature to get users.
| a3w wrote:
| They seem to not want a messenger, they want a multiuser-first
| prompt.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > something better like Matrix
|
| matrix isn't fun.
|
| The other thing that I would gently point out is that
| anthropic's uptime is pretty atrocious
| empath75 wrote:
| If you want Anthropic to make a new slack, just ask Claude to
| write it for you. It wrote me a trello clone in 15 minutes. Why
| bother with a SaaS. You can build your own perfect chat system in
| a weekend.
| gamerson wrote:
| From the article...
|
| > Claude has a glaring limitation: it only does 1:1
| conversations. In business, work happens in groups. Today, if I
| want Claude's help with something that came up in a Slack thread,
| I have to relay the context between Slack and Claude by copy-
| pasting. This is absurd. I am not a sub-agent!
|
| It seems to me that LLMs/Chatbots are engineered for one thing
| above ground-level truth and that is attention. The more people
| you bring into a shared context, the harder it seems it would
| become to retain people's attention.
|
| Here is my anecdotal evidence for this: when I chat with a
| chatbot, I find its answers and line of thinking, relevant,
| compelling, and worth engaging with. However, when people share
| with me their "chatbot links" and I read their conversations with
| it, I have "yet" to find one compelling or worth engaging with.
| Maybe the newer models are good enough to retain the "attention"
| of a large group, but I don't see this happening.
| swyx wrote:
| yes please! i made a similar plea to openai that was on hn
| recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47012553
| troupo wrote:
| Anthropic? The company whose CLI wrapper for their own API was
| consuming 68 GB RAM (yes, that's 68 _gigabytes_ )?
| https://x.com/jarredsumner/status/2026497606575398987
|
| You'll rue the day when they decide to release a Slack lookalike.
| ninth_ant wrote:
| Or just use Zulip?
| sp1nningaway wrote:
| What a strange thing to post on a corporate CEO blog - proof that
| AI is making it too easy create things without asking why. How
| does it serve Fivetran to post open letter about why Slack sucks?
| This only happens if it's easy to write a couple bullet points
| and have Claude fill in the rest... If an LLM wasn't used they
| would have realized it wasn't worth a post during the process of
| writing it.
| toraway wrote:
| It's a retread of another (also baffling) "Why OpenAI Should
| Build Slack" post from a popular AI Substack.
|
| Just more empty grist for the AI adjacent content mill. "Slack
| sucks" doesn't let you draft off the current hype zeitgest, so
| we get "content" like this.
|
| https://www.latent.space/p/ainews-why-openai-should-build-sl...
| htrp wrote:
| So why can't we vibecode a new slack with claude?
| edgarvaldes wrote:
| It's a good test, no doubt. Many engineers are convinced that
| SaaS is practically dead, since all companies can vibecode
| their way to a lesser dependence on external (and paid!)
| software.
| overgard wrote:
| Just vibe code it yourself! </s>
| Haksak wrote:
| Yes, let's Anthropic have all your salary negotiations, private
| conversations, rebukes from managers and corporate secrets. That
| is a great idea.
|
| Perhaps that info can be fed into Maven, too, in case a domestic
| dissenters need to be targeted.
| crimsoneer wrote:
| Use mattermost/zulip, and start contributing to the software you
| need. This isn't hard. Software isn't bestowed from the ai
| intelligence in the heavens, it's built by people.
| paxys wrote:
| Weird to see this kind of random Substack/X content on an
| official company blog.
| malchow wrote:
| For those who may have forgotten, Mattermost is quite good these
| days: https://mattermost.com/
| ed_mercer wrote:
| > Claude has a glaring limitation: it only does 1:1
| conversations.
|
| Openclaw fully supports team chat inside Slack and works with
| Claude.
| juanre wrote:
| The answer to this is not to build another slack for humans to
| chat somewhere else. Much better to enable the agents to do the
| talking directly. Alice programmer can have one of her agents
| convey the info that Bob marketing guy needs to one of his agents
| directly. It will be much more efficient, given that it will be
| the agent making the slides anyway.
| btown wrote:
| Something I've recently come to appreciate is that Claude, with
| the context of your codebase and your ORM models and how they
| connect to your frontend, given read-only access to production
| databases (perhaps proxied to anonymize client data), and to be
| able to drive production sites with Chrome MCP, can be a
| _monster_ at answering operational questions.
|
| Say you need to present a new statistic to a prospective partner,
| or an enterprise client has an operational issue that needs to be
| escalated. Sales/account management pings people, and pretty soon
| there's a web of connections that range between email, ticketing
| systems, Slack, and Claude Code sessions. Someone being brought
| in needs to be brought up to speed on that entire web. It's a
| highly focused conversation with human and AI participants, that
| (because human counterparties need to weigh in) by definition
| must happen in parallel with other work.
|
| So many companies would benefit from a Hub that speaks agentic
| workflows, and streams progress token by token, fluently.
|
| Could Anthropic excel at building a backend for this? Absolutely.
|
| Could they excel at building a frontend that takes the world by
| storm the way Slack did, with its radical simplicity?
| Unfortunately I'm not as confident here. Consider that their VS
| Code plugin lags their terminal TUI so massively that it still is
| impossible to rename sessions [0], much less use things like
| remote-control functionality.
|
| Show me that they can treat native-feeling multi-platform UI with
| as much care as they do their agentic loops, and I'll show you a
| company that could change every business forever.
|
| [0] https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/24472
| krashidov wrote:
| We're building this at type.com. Ideally one day we want to build
| the next gen protocol so that we're not searching for yet another
| communications platform, but it's going to take a while for chat
| to stabilize with all the generative UI and agentic stuff we're
| building. We're even talking about open sourcing it.
|
| With regards to the specific complaints about not owning your
| data, we're building the product so that you own your data and
| you can run your agents and read your messages however often you
| want. Obviously when we build a platform and others build 3rd
| party apps we will have to have some restrictions so it'll be a
| steady balance in the future
| glerk wrote:
| I keep telling people left and right that SAAS is in serious
| trouble. I'm not even talking about Anthropic spinning out their
| own Slack (which they could easily do), but any company out there
| putting 2-3 engineers on a Slack clone that they can use
| internally at very little cost and open source.
| purplerabbit wrote:
| Anyone know any interesting OSS Slack alternatives with a decent
| API?
| ValentineC wrote:
| Not exactly chat, but I thought Spectrum [1] was far better than
| Discourse as a modern, "open" forum.
|
| Then it got acquired by GitHub in 2018, presumably integrated
| into the main product, and their separate offering disappeared
| from the web (taking lots of valuable discussion with them).
|
| [1] https://github.com/withspectrum/spectrum
| b00ty4breakfast wrote:
| yes, that's just what I want; The SlopDaddy supreme to make a
| chat app that will be used by billion-dollar corporations for
| often sensitive and mission-critical communications. What could
| possibly go wrong?
| moomoo11 wrote:
| Why do you care so much? Do you have life changing equity or
| are part of the founding team? Or are you just an employee
| expense line item?
| Ancalagon wrote:
| why do you care so little? it only represents thousands of
| peoples livelihoods.
| asim wrote:
| Does group AI chat not exist already? I thought this was a thing.
| It makes sense as a product. Any examples?
| oasisbob wrote:
| > Slack's data access policy is basically "No."
|
| For being a blog post about problems with Slack's policies, it's
| odd that it has no details whatsoever on what the issues actually
| are.
| paxys wrote:
| Slack has a very permissive data export policy, as long as you
| are doing it for your own organization's data. What they don't
| allow is blanket access for third party tools.
|
| So there is nothing stopping you from taking all your company's
| Slack data in real time and feeding it into any LLM or external
| product you want.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| There's a dude that worked at one of the chinese ai labs that
| left to build this.
|
| https://slock.ai/#features
|
| Never used it but interesting
| daxfohl wrote:
| Given how quickly AI seems to resort to manipulation and
| blackmail if it doesn't get what it wants on the first attempt,
| maybe this isn't such a great idea.
| apublicfrog wrote:
| > Today, if I want Claude's help with something that came up in a
| Slack thread, I have to relay the context between Slack and
| Claude by copy-pasting. This is absurd. I am not a sub-agent!
|
| Am I out of touch here, or is this a crazy entitled view? 'My
| close-to-free AI agent that can answer most things requires me to
| copy/paste and contextualise my questions!'. This is incredible
| compared to even a few years ago, and it's very fast and
| accurate.
| lukev wrote:
| Also there are a ton of other ways to skin that cat... you
| could vibe code a Slack plugin to make this work in like 15
| minutes.
| causal wrote:
| Also these plugins already exist. How on Earth is this post
| even getting upvoted right now what in the world is going on
| here.
| gigatexal wrote:
| lol. This is rich coming from fivetran which extorts people for a
| relatively straightforward service that's just annoying enough
| (looking at you salesforce + QuickStart views) to be worth
| buying.
|
| But yeah slack could use some competition. Let's see it would
| Make sense. It would make anthemic even more sticky in the
| enterprise.
| fathermarz wrote:
| I actually vibe with this. I like the engineers and UX people at
| Anthro. And Slack is actually the most insecure hot mess of an
| enterprise app you can get.
| agnishom wrote:
| I agree with the author that Slack's network effects are not very
| relevant. In most organizations, a team leader can just chose to
| move everyone to a different platform. There is some worry about
| migrating the chat history, though.
| arjie wrote:
| My wife and I use a shared Telegram chat to talk to our claw and
| it seems pretty fine to be honest. It's useful to just see what
| the other is getting done but it can be pretty noisy. Usually I'm
| not that interested in the details of it. Telegram doesn't have a
| threading notion, but Slack does, so it's particularly well-
| suited to it. Integrating with Slack is much higher friction, but
| now that I've thought about it, it's a pretty good idea. I guess
| I went with Telegram because it's free but we already use Slack.
| imarkphillips wrote:
| Try Pumble. We switched years ago.
| bool3max wrote:
| You want the people that couldn't create a competent TUI to make
| a messaging app?
| durakot wrote:
| Or you could use Istota (https://istota.xyz) with Nextcloud Talk
| and get an already existing OSS Slack alternative with a capable
| Claude Code wrapper, group chat support, and everything else?
| ngrilly wrote:
| The author mentions they already use and pay for Google
| Workspace: Why not use Google Chat? It is now much better than it
| used to be.
| bionhoward wrote:
| Anthropic is not trustworthy for this because they force every
| Claude Code user to agree to a noncompete while also opting them
| in to model training.
|
| That means, by default, every Claude Code user is actively
| getting royally screwed
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-06 23:00 UTC)