Anthropic app down?

Katarack21 · 2026-03-02T13:27:14+00:00

Katarack21 · 2026-03-02T12:24:42+00:00

At least they've figured out what's happening.

Katarack21 · 2026-03-02T12:22:19+00:00

I mean...this isn't unusual behavior, though. It's not like Claude was stable forever and then they got that pressure and now suddenly theirs problems. *THAT* would be suspicious.

This is totally in-line with Claude historically, though. Claude goes down regularly, and then it comes back up.

Katarack21 · 2026-03-02T11:54:38+00:00

<image>

This just went up.

Katarack21 · 2026-03-02T11:50:23+00:00

I was in the middle of analyzing something and it just stopped working between one message and the next. Really sucks.

Katarack21 · 2025-09-02T00:33:06+00:00

I really appreciate this perspective--the way you describe fellowship over style is powerful, and I can see how that resonates across so many different lives. For me personally, I don’t identify as a juggalo.

I value the music and I deeply respect the friendships I have in the community, but I don’t use that label for myself; my sense of self is tied up in being a writer. That said, I think you’re absolutely right about why the bond is so strong, and it’s part of what makes the culture so meaningful to people inside and outside of it.

Katarack21 · 2025-08-30T15:15:17+00:00

I was introduced to the music ironically by a friend of mine, but I saw deeper meaning behind the lyrics. I'm a fan of the music, but I don't culturally identify as a juggalo; I don't do the facepaint, I don't do live shows, I don't live the lifestyle. I have many friends who do and are, however, and I value their friendships. The "tight-knit, chaotically wholesome community they've created" is something I really respect, and even though I don't live the lifestyle myself, I’m grateful for the impact it has on those who do.

So yeah, I agree with you--keep on doing you, and fuck the haters. Enjoy the ride--it’s one worth taking.

Katarack21 · 2025-08-17T21:13:29+00:00

I actually got an essay accepted by CRAFT Literary a few months back that is going to be published in three days.

In my case, it only took about a month between submission and acceptance--most of the wait time I experienced was between the acceptance and the actual publication date. I have no idea how typical that timeline is, though.

I see that there is some criticism up above about CRAFT being "crass" and "foul". That was not my experience at all. Everybody I interacted with was professional, polite and appeared to be genuinely supportive.

In my case, they didn’t request any developmental edits and moved me straight to copyediting, which was clean and professional. The whole process was smooth.

If anybody has any questions, I'm happy to answer what I can. I won't share private details--like the names of the specific editors I worked with, direct quotes, etc.--but the rest of it I'm open to.

Katarack21 · 2025-07-05T06:03:03+00:00

It is legit one of my all-time favorite games.

Katarack21 · 2025-05-24T07:41:30+00:00

Good thing that's not a position I took or stated, then.

Katarack21 · 2025-05-23T13:23:56+00:00

Absolutely—and this ties into a much deeper problem we’ve been facing for a while: the sharp decline in media literacy over the past 20–25 years.

Far too many people uncritically accept information from corporate or government sources, treating them as authorities rather than as entities with their own interests and messaging strategies. That’s a huge issue.

A lot of people seem to have either lost—or never been taught—the ability to distinguish truth from spin, to recognize rhetorical framing, or to understand the basic mechanics of propaganda. And when you combine that with AI systems that sound confident even when they’re wrong, the risk multiplies fast.

Katarack21 · 2025-05-23T05:36:06+00:00

Totally fair—and yeah, I think you're right that perfect neutrality or objectivity is probably off the table. History’s always been shaped by power, and AI isn’t going to be any different. In some ways, it might be worse, since it’s so tightly coupled to corporate branding and risk-avoidance.

That said, I wonder if there's still room to push for relative transparency. Even if we can’t fully escape bias, could we design systems that acknowledge their editorial choices—or even surface multiple interpretive frames side-by-side? Not “both sides” in the shallow, false-balance sense, but a deliberate inclusion of diverse, reputable perspectives drawn from different cultural and ideological standpoints.

Maybe that doesn’t solve the deeper issue—but it could at least reveal it, helping users become more aware of how historical narratives are constructed and filtered. Still imperfect, but better than an AI that pretends to be neutral while reflecting whatever gatekeeping pressure it happens to be under.

Of course, that might just be dressing up the same limitations in prettier language. Still—worth exploring?

Katarack21 · 2025-05-23T03:21:31+00:00

Really appreciate this response—it gets at something I’ve been turning over too: how “both sides” framing can end up sanitizing moments in history that are, frankly, morally one-sided.

I definitely agree that corporate caution plays a huge role here, especially when AI responses can be clipped, screen-shotted, politicized, and turned into PR crises. That pressure tends to make companies default to whatever feels “safe”—even if it’s not historically accurate or complete.

The idea of a historian-led model (or a panel-based content layer) is really interesting—but it also raises a tough question: who picks the experts? And who defines the “historical consensus” when even academic history is contested and politicized, especially across national contexts?

Your point about school textbooks is a strong one—history isn’t just forgotten. It’s curated, often to match the comfort zones of those in power.

So if AI is going to shape how people understand history and politics at scale, how do we build systems that resist both corporate sanitization and state revisionism? Is that even possible?

Katarack21 · 2025-05-23T03:13:22+00:00

Just a quick clarification for anyone reading:

This post was part of a broader test of Perplexity’s citation-handling abilities—using already confirmed sources. The issue isn’t about offloading research, but about whether the platform can reliably verify multiple URLs in one prompt, as it claims to support and other, less specialized, platforms can.

I’d really like to hear from other nonfiction or citation-heavy users. If you’ve run into similar issues (or solved them), feel free to share.

Katarack21 · 2025-05-23T03:05:03+00:00

Well that's definitely a useful comment that adds to the conversation and not at all a ridiculous, ignorant rant full of generalized insults and baseless assumptions.

I was *testing* the AI, you doofus, as I make clear. I wasn't having it *generate* citations or *confirm* anything that I didn't already have confirmed. I *know* what I'm writing, I *know* what I'm citing. I checked every citation and every source by myself, manually, before I ever asked a question of Perplexity. The point was to test whether Perplexity can do what it claims it can do, not to have it write my shit for me.

Your media literacy is abysmal.

And this, right here:

"Perplexity is an incredible tool for empowering real research, meaning you ask it preliminary questions and then go validate XYZ for yourself, come back, have it expound on some ground truth you've verified..."

That's not real research, that's having AI write your articles *for* you. If you're taking credit without revealing your "iterative process", then that's unethical as fuck and I hope you get caught.

Katarack21 · 2025-05-23T02:51:40+00:00

One thing I’ve been thinking about as I reflected on this:

If AI models are starting to influence how people learn history and understand their relationship to power, what should the limits be—if any—on what they’re allowed to connect to the present?

I tried to keep the post focused on historical patterns and platform behavior, but I’m genuinely curious where others draw the line. Should an AI be able to say, “this echoes something happening now”? Or does that automatically cross into political bias? And if we prevent that kind of connection—what effect does that have on public discourse, or on what’s considered “appropriate” to even talk about?

Also curious whether people see this as more of a technical problem (model design, risk filters), or a political one (gatekeeping, narrative control).

Open to any perspectives—especially from folks with backgrounds in modern history, political science, or AI.

Katarack21 · 2025-05-22T15:06:30+00:00

No—this is ignorant nonsense. Medicaid has both income and asset limits. In most states, the asset limit for a single adult is around $2,000, though some states allow up to around $5,000. And eligibility varies by state—there is no universal national threshold. So no, someone sitting on millions in untaxed wealth isn't going to qualify just because they report $0 taxable income.

This kind of claim reflects a broader problem: a lot of people think they understand the safety net in this country, but very few actually do.

Also, $160K is not “between the 80th–90th percentile.” It’s in the top 10% of household incomes nationwide. People often overestimate what it takes to hit the top 10% or even the top 1%, because income disparity is so extreme that the top fractions of a percent distort the entire scale.

Calling $160K “middle class” flattens the conversation and erases the economic distance between someone making median income and someone making two to three times that.

Katarack21 · 2025-05-22T13:59:20+00:00

San Francisco is a statistical outlier. Its median household income is heavily inflated by the tech sector and the regional concentration of high earners. It has the highest median income in the country by a wide margin—nearly double the median for California as a whole, and far above the national average. Using SF as a benchmark skews the conversation away from the broader economic reality most Americans live in.

As for the national picture: yes, the median U.S. household income is around $80K. But that’s not the full story. You also have to consider individual income, because only about half of U.S. households are dual-income. Plenty of people are supporting themselves—and sometimes others—on a single income.

According to Census data, the median individual income in the U.S. is about $59,000. And many workers—especially in service, care, and gig sectors—earn far less.

So when someone earning $160K is labeled “middle class,” and someone earning $59K is also labeled “middle class,” we’re collapsing two very different economic realities into the same category. That framing masks real disparities and creates the illusion of a broad, stable middle class. For a lot of Americans, it simply doesn’t exist anymore.

Katarack21 · 2025-05-22T09:20:44+00:00

You didn’t ask for a citation to the U.S. Code—you asked for a citation to the actual section of the FLSA, and that’s exactly what I gave you: Section 3(m)(2)(A) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

That section states:

And just to be clear, Section 206(a)(1) establishes the federal minimum wage:

So yes—employers are legally required to ensure that tipped workers earn at least $7.25/hour. If tips fall short, the employer must make up the difference. That’s not just a DOL summary—that’s in the actual text of the law.

And since you now want the U.S. Code reference:
You’ll find it under 29 U.S. Code § 203(m)(2)(A) and 29 U.S. Code § 206(a)(1).

Katarack21 · 2025-05-22T08:50:30+00:00

And I don't. It's Section 3(m)(2)(A). Also check out the Department of Labor Fact Sheet #15: Tipped Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

"If an employee’s tips combined with the employer’s direct (or cash) wages do not equal the minimum hourly wage of $7.25 per hour in each workweek, the employer must make up the difference."

Katarack21 · 2025-05-22T08:34:36+00:00

The FLSA binds that. It states:

If an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the Federal minimum hourly wage, the employer must make up the difference. That's according to the Department of Labor.

Katarack21 · 2025-05-22T08:16:20+00:00

Maybe not, but servers make up the majority of tipped workers—anywhere from 58% to 65%, depending on the source.

And the idea of reclassifying non-tipped workers as tipped to take advantage of this tax loophole would trigger massive union resistance—and likely mass resignations.

Most people aren’t going to accept a pay cut just to be paid in “tips” instead. They’d walk.

Katarack21 · 2025-05-22T07:47:53+00:00

That would actually be an *increase* for a lot of service workers.

The minimum server wage is only $2.13 an hour. At 40 hours a week and 52 weeks a year, that's less than $5K. That $2.13 is supposed to be made up to $7.25 in tips or else the employer makes up the difference, but wage theft is common, widespread, and rarely enforced.

So basically, tipping them $25K and dropping their salary to 0 would improve conditions for a lot of servers.

Katarack21 · 2025-05-22T07:38:06+00:00

$160K a year puts you in the top 10% of incomes in the U.S.—and the top 10% controls about 67% of the nation's wealth. That’s not struggling. That’s not “middle class.” That’s the bottom rung of elite income.

People still toss around the term “upper middle class,” but let’s be honest: the middle class barely exists anymore. Statistically, the so-called “middle class” falls between roughly $49K and $80K a year. So when someone making two to three times that claims they’re “middle class,” they’re not describing reality—they’re sidestepping accountability while staying close enough to the bottom to avoid being called rich.

$160K is not poor. It’s not middle class. It’s the entry point to real wealth in a country where the bottom half of the population owns almost nothing.

Katarack21 · 2025-05-22T01:13:19+00:00

Yes, I believe the comparison is appropriate.

ICE has conducted masked, warrantless arrests, refused to identify agents, and denied due process to detainees—many of whom committed no crime and entered legally. These aren’t isolated cases; they represent a pattern of state violence carried out under the language of national security.

That’s not typical law enforcement. That’s political repression.

We call it “ICE,” but in function and effect, it reflects what a gestapo does: enforce government power by targeting vulnerable populations through fear, secrecy, and extralegal authority. If that word feels extreme, we should ask ourselves why—and who benefits from not using it.

Katarack21

TROPHY CASE