It's not really worth much when it doesn't work most of the time though:

https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/18866 https://updog.ai/status/anthropic

It's a machine that spits out sev:hi vulnerabilities by the dozen and the complaint is the uptime isn't consistent enough?

▲

bastard_op 3 hours ago | parent [-]

If I'm attempting to use it as a service to do continuous checks on things and it fails 50% of the time, I'd say yes, wouldn't you?

▲

tptacek 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you had a machine with a lever, and 7 times out of 10 when you pulled that lever nothing happened, and the other 3 times it spat a $5 bill at you, would your immediate next step be:

(1) throw the machine away

(2) put it aside and call a service rep to come find out what's wrong with it

(3) pull the lever incessantly

I only have one undergrad psych credit (it's one of my two college credits), but it had something to say about this particular thought experiment.

	▲	candiddevmike 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You're leaving out how much it costs to pull the lever, both in time and money.

▲

jsnell 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But it's not failing 50% of the time. Their status page[0] shows about 99.6% availability for both the API and Claude Code. And specifically for the vulnerability finding use case that the article was about and you're dismissing as "not worth much", why in the world would you need continuous checks to produce value?

[0] https://status.claude.com/

▲

anhner 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

updog? what's updog?