Just going on and on about compliance when you have no idea about the details. It’s a classic example of how IT fails most large orgs.

▲

Ucalegon 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

Compliance isn't required due to a vendor.

Compliance is due to the legal obligations thanks to local regulations and obligations that are defined through contracts with 3rd parties.

Saying 'found the Microsoft person' expresses a lack of understanding of the domain.

▲

infecto 21 minutes ago | parent [-]

You kind of just proved my point. Sorry I should not have been joking but i don’t think you have a grasp what’s going on around you.

This is how IT acts in my enterprise orgs. There is absolutely a need for compliance and governance but unfortunately the people in these roles are typically not technically minded and have low incentives to innovate so you get these folks only really arguing for their jobs.

▲

Ucalegon 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

Cool story bro.

Do you think the MSFT sales person, or anyone who has the financial incentive to innovate, doesn't want you to innovate? They want you on Azure and O365 regardless, they don't care.

Hell, Microsoft will give you will give you 150k [0] of credits to do so.

But keep talking as if you have some magical, unique, special insight that escapes contracts and the law, compared to the people who, sadly, have to deal with reality.

[0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/startups

	▲	infecto 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What is your deal about contract law? It’s not some mystical thing. You can get red lines with Anthropic, you can get a DPA with Anthropic. You keep going on and on about governance and contract law on a thread about how Claude Code is pretty useful for nontechnical people. Risk is always nonzero but you can already today get pretty comfortable with most of these orgs with some customization in the contracts.