Daniel's prompt this time is about the difference between personal certifications and vendor partner certifications — what he calls the "stamp" that a shop is legit. He's been watching Anthropic roll out a certification program through a partner network, which got him thinking. As a solo operator working heavily with Claude and AI tooling, he's wondering whether a solo can even get certified as a partner, or if those programs are gated behind revenue thresholds and headcount requirements he'll never meet. And he wants us to untangle what a partner cert actually means versus a personal skills cert. There's a real tension here between the badge on your resume and the badge on your business.
It's a tension that matters more now than it did even three years ago, because the AI services layer is maturing fast. When a company like Anthropic stands up a partner program, they're signaling that their platform is enterprise-ready enough that third parties can build practices around it. That's a milestone. By the way, today's episode is powered by DeepSeek V four Pro.
And I'll say, Daniel's distinction is the right one to make up front. A personal cert says "I know this thing." A partner cert says "this organization has processes, people, and a relationship with the vendor that you can rely on." They're answering different questions entirely.
And most of the confusion in the certification discourse comes from conflating them. Let's start with the partner side, because that's where the money and the contractual requirements live. Daniel mentioned Google Cloud Platform, and he's right that their basic support tier is famously uninspiring. I looked into this — Google Cloud has a partner directory called the Google Cloud Partner Advantage program. They tier partners into three levels: Community, which is essentially self-serve onboarding, then Partner, and then Premier. To hit Premier, you need certified individuals on staff, demonstrated customer success, and — here's the part Daniel was asking about — annual recurring revenue thresholds.
What's the number?
Google doesn't publish a single public dollar figure. They use a points-based system that weighs certifications, attach rates, customer references, and consumption growth. But industry consensus is that Premier tier requires somewhere north of two hundred thousand dollars in managed recurring revenue, and realistically more. The point system effectively gates small shops.
If you're a solo operator billing fifty thousand a year in GCP-related services, you're not getting that Premier badge. It doesn't matter how good you are.
And that's by design. The Premier tier exists so that a Fortune 500 company can filter the partner directory and see a curated list of firms that Google has essentially pre-vetted as capable of handling large-scale deployments. That filtering function is the whole product. If anyone could get it, the badge would lose its signal value for enterprise procurement.
Which brings us to the uncomfortable question: is the partner badge actually a signal of quality, or is it just a signal of scale?
It's both, and that's what makes it interesting. There's a correlation between scale and quality in managed services, because you can't sustain a large practice without some baseline of competence. But it's not a guarantee. I've seen Premier partners that rotate junior staff through accounts like a turnstile. The badge doesn't prevent the "beautiful slide deck followed by the intern" problem Daniel described. It just means the intern has access to a better internal knowledge base.
The vendor's escalation path. That's the part people miss. When you're a certified partner, you're not just getting a logo for your website footer. You're getting a dedicated channel manager, access to engineering teams, early product roadmaps, and sometimes co-selling support where the vendor's own salespeople bring you into deals. For a small shop, that's arguably more valuable than the badge itself.
The co-selling piece is huge. Microsoft's partner program — they rebranded it to the Microsoft AI Cloud Partner Program — has something like four hundred thousand partners globally. But the top tiers, Solutions Partner and Azure Expert MSP, get actual lead-sharing from Microsoft's field sales teams. That's revenue that walks in the door without you having to source it. For a solo operator, getting into that flow would be transformative, but the requirements include multiple gold-level certifications across your team, customer growth metrics, and a managed services practice that's audited.
Let's talk about AWS, since that's the biggest cloud provider. Their partner program is called the AWS Partner Network, and they've got Select, Advanced, and Premier tiers. What does a solo operator need to hit Advanced?
AWS is more transparent than Google. Advanced tier requires at least four accredited individuals on staff — those are personal certifications, by the way — plus a minimum of two technical professional accreditations, which are harder. On the business side, you need at least fifteen thousand dollars in monthly recurring revenue from AWS-related services. That's a hundred eighty thousand a year. But here's the kicker: you also need at least three customer references that AWS can call and validate. So if you've only got two clients, even if they're each paying you a hundred grand, you can't get Advanced.
Which is a structural barrier for the solo operator. Not insurmountable, but it forces you to build a certain kind of business before you can even apply. You need staff, or at least subcontractors you can count as accredited individuals.
That's the point where the personal cert and the partner cert collide. To get the partner cert, your people need personal certs. AWS requires Solutions Architect Associate or Professional for the accredited individual count. Google requires Professional Cloud Architect or Data Engineer certs. These are rigorous exams. The Google Professional Cloud Architect exam is two hours, covers everything from network design to IAM to cost optimization, and has a reputation for being genuinely difficult.
Which brings us to the value question on the personal side. Daniel mentioned the Python cert — the "I may as well do it to show I know what I'm doing" category. And there's a real split in the industry about whether those are worth anything.
The split is mostly about who's issuing the cert. A Python Institute certification? Employers don't care. A Kubernetes Application Developer certification from the Cloud Native Computing Foundation? That one carries weight because the exam is performance-based — you're actually in a live cluster solving problems. The difference is the assessment method. Multiple-choice certs are losing value fast in technical fields because AI can pass them. Performance-based certs, where you're building, configuring, troubleshooting in a live environment — those are holding value and in some cases appreciating.
This connects to what Anthropic is doing. If they're rolling out a certification for Claude and their toolkit, the question is whether it'll be a knowledge test or a skills demonstration. Given that their whole platform is about interacting with an AI, designing a meaningful assessment is tricky.
It's fascinating. Anthropic hasn't published the full details of their certification program publicly yet. What we know from their partner page is that they've launched a "Powered by Claude" directory and a Claude partner network, with a focus on systems integrators and consultancies that build solutions on top of Claude. They're starting with larger partners — the Accentures and Slaloms of the world — which is exactly what you'd expect. It's the Salesforce playbook. Marc Benioff built AppExchange and the Salesforce certification ecosystem by first certifying the big consultancies, creating demand in the enterprise market, and then opening it up to smaller players once the ecosystem had credibility.
The Salesforce ecosystem is the canonical example of certifications that actually pay for themselves. A Salesforce Certified Technical Architect can command north of two hundred thousand dollars a year in salary. The exam has a reported pass rate below twenty percent. That's not a "lightbulb management" cert. That's a genuine barrier that filters for expertise.
Salesforce charges four thousand dollars just to take the exam, plus a mandatory review board where you present an architecture to practicing CTAs. It's a multi-day ordeal. But the market values it because the market has learned that passing it predicts performance. That's the entire ballgame. A certification is worth exactly what the market believes it predicts.
Which is why the "certifications are all scams" take is too blunt. Some are scams. Some are rigorous signals. The question is always: who's vouching, what's the assessment, and what's the market response?
Let me push on the Anthropic angle specifically, because this is where Daniel's prompt gets really interesting. He's a solo operator doing professional services work with AI tooling. If Anthropic launches a partner certification, he wants to know if he can get it. Based on every other major platform's playbook, the answer is: not in the first wave, but probably in the second or third.
Walk me through the timeline.
Phase one is always the global systems integrators — Accenture, Deloitte, Cognizant, the big consultancies. They get early access to training, they co-develop the certification curriculum, and they get the badge first. This serves two purposes for Anthropic. One, it validates the certification with credible brands. Two, it creates a trained workforce that can actually deliver Claude-based solutions at enterprise scale, which drives platform adoption. Phase two is regional partners and mid-size firms — companies with maybe fifty to five hundred employees, proven practices in adjacent areas like data engineering or cloud migration. Phase three is where they open it to smaller shops, often through a lower tier with fewer benefits but still the badge. Phase four, if it happens, is individual certification.
Phase four may never happen for a platform like this. AWS certifies individuals, but AWS is infrastructure. A Claude certification is more akin to a Salesforce or ServiceNow cert — it's about configuring and extending a specific platform. Those ecosystems tend to keep partner certs at the organizational level and individual certs as prerequisites for the partner tier.
ServiceNow, for example, has the ServiceNow Partner Program with tiers based on revenue, customer satisfaction scores, and the number of certified individuals on staff. Their Certified System Administrator exam is an individual cert, but it's primarily valuable because it counts toward your employer's partner status. On its own, it's a decent resume line but not a career-maker. The real money is in Certified Implementation Specialist tracks for specific modules like IT Service Management or HR Service Delivery.
For Daniel's situation — solo operator, heavy Claude user, doing automation and agentic work — the most likely path is that Anthropic eventually offers a lower-tier partner designation that requires, say, one or two certified individuals and some number of customer references, but drops the revenue threshold or sets it low enough that a solo can hit it.
If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, there's a reason Anthropic might be more motivated to do this than, say, Google was in the early days of GCP. Claude is competing in a crowded AI platform market. OpenAI has enterprise partnerships. Google has Vertex AI and Gemini. Meta is open-sourcing Llama models. Anthropic's differentiator is safety and reliability, but they need distribution. A broad partner ecosystem is distribution. If they restrict the partner tier to only large firms, they're leaving a huge number of potential implementers on the table.
The counterargument is that supporting small partners is expensive for the vendor. Every partner, no matter how small, consumes channel manager time, support resources, and co-marketing funds. There's a real cost calculus. A Premier partner bringing in five million a year in influenced revenue justifies a dedicated channel manager. A solo operator bringing in a hundred thousand, maybe not.
That's where the program design gets creative. You can tier the benefits so that small partners get the badge, access to training materials, and a listing in the directory, but not the dedicated channel manager or the co-selling support. That's basically the AWS Select tier model. Select partners get the badge and some discounts on training, but no lead-sharing and no dedicated support. It costs AWS very little to maintain a Select partner, but the partner gets the credential.
From the client's perspective, is the Select badge actually meaningful?
It depends on the client. For a mid-market company looking for an AWS consultant, seeing the Select badge at least tells them the firm has some accredited people and has done enough AWS business to justify applying. It's a floor, not a ceiling. The problem, as Daniel hinted, is that clients don't always understand the tier structure. They see "AWS Partner" and assume it means deep expertise, when it might just mean the firm filed some paperwork and has one certified Solutions Architect.
This is where the MSP model gets murky. Daniel mentioned the footer logos — "Google Certified Partner," "AWS Advanced Partner," "Microsoft Solutions Partner." These are trust signals, but they're also marketing. A firm can be an AWS Advanced Partner and still assign a junior cloud engineer with six months of experience to your migration project. The badge applies to the organization, not the individual who shows up on Monday morning.
That's the core tension Daniel is wrestling with. As a solo operator, when he shows up, the client gets him. There's no bait-and-switch because there's nobody to switch to. His personal expertise is the product. So in some ways, a solo operator with deep Claude expertise is a safer bet than a large partner where you don't know who's doing the work, even if the large partner has the shiny badge.
The shiny badge problem is real. But let me push back on behalf of the badges. A partner certification often comes with things that a solo operator simply cannot offer. The vendor backs the partner. If something goes catastrophically wrong, the vendor has a support escalation path with the partner that doesn't exist for an unaffiliated consultant. For risk-averse enterprises, that matters more than individual brilliance.
And there's another element: insurance and compliance. Many partner programs require the partner to carry specific levels of professional liability insurance, sometimes cyber insurance. They may also require SOC 2 compliance or ISO 27001 certification for higher tiers. These are things that a solo operator might not have, and they're expensive to obtain. A SOC 2 Type II audit can cost twenty to fifty thousand dollars and take months.
Which loops back to Daniel's point about the distinction between personal certs and partner certs. A personal cert is about you. A partner cert is about your business's operational maturity. SOC 2, ISO 27001, insurance, documented processes, escalation procedures — these are organizational attributes, not individual ones. And for many clients, especially in regulated industries, those attributes are non-negotiable.
Healthcare, finance, government — they'll often require SOC 2 just to get in the door. A solo operator who's brilliant with Claude but doesn't have SOC 2 is locked out of those contracts regardless of their personal expertise. That's not a failure of the certification system. That's the system working as designed to filter for operational risk.
Where does this leave someone like Daniel? He's a solo operator doing AI professional services. He's deeply proficient with Claude. He wants the credibility that comes with a partner badge, but he's not going to hire four people and get SOC 2 just to qualify. What's the realistic play?
The realistic play is multiple tracks in parallel. Track one: get any individual certifications that Anthropic eventually offers. Even if they're designed as prerequisites for partner status, they'll still have standalone value as a signal of Claude proficiency. Track two: build a portfolio of public work — case studies, open-source projects, detailed write-ups of Claude-based solutions. A public portfolio can signal expertise more effectively than a badge in many situations, especially with technical buyers.
Track three: partner with an existing partner. If Anthropic's ecosystem develops like every other platform ecosystem, there will be larger partners who need subcontractors with deep technical skills. They've got the badge, the insurance, and the client relationships. Daniel's got the hands-on expertise. That subcontracting relationship can be lucrative and it sidesteps the partner program requirements entirely.
That's the consulting ecosystem in a nutshell. The big firms win the contracts, then they bring in specialized boutiques and solo operators to do the actual work. The client pays the big firm's rates, the big firm takes their margin, and the solo operator gets a healthy day rate without the overhead of maintaining partner status.
From the client's perspective, they get the best of both worlds — the big firm's badge, insurance, and escalation path, plus the solo operator's deep expertise. It's not a perfect system, but it's the system we've got.
Let's talk about the Anthropic certification rollout specifically, because there's a detail in Daniel's prompt that's worth highlighting. He mentioned that Anthropic is training up a big company that has a lot of people who want to take the cert, and they can deliver it internally. That's the "train the trainer" model. It's the same approach Kubernetes used when they launched the Certified Kubernetes Administrator program. The Linux Foundation trained a cohort of authorized training partners, who then delivered the courses and exams to individuals.
The train-the-trainer model has a specific failure mode: quality drift. The further you get from the source, the more variance you get in how the material is taught and assessed. By the time the cert reaches the third wave of partners, you might have instructors who passed the exam but have never deployed a production Claude application at scale.
That's a real concern. The countermeasure is a rigorous exam that's performance-based and centrally administered. If Anthropic controls the exam and makes it hard enough, it doesn't matter who taught the course. The credential maintains its signal value. The Salesforce model works this way — anyone can teach Salesforce admin courses, but the exam comes from Salesforce and is proctored under strict conditions.
Proctoring is another dimension. Remote proctoring has become standard since the pandemic, but it's controversial. Some cert providers use AI-based proctoring that flags eye movements and background noise, which generates false positives and frustrates test-takers. Others use live proctors who watch via webcam, which raises privacy concerns. If Anthropic is thoughtful about this, they'll offer in-person options at testing centers.
Pearson VUE runs testing centers globally. That's what AWS, Cisco, and Microsoft use. If Anthropic partners with Pearson, they get a proven infrastructure for exam delivery and proctoring without having to build it themselves. Given that they're starting with large partners, they might initially do on-site proctoring at the partner's facilities — send an Anthropic person or a certified proctor to administer the exam. That solves the remote proctoring headache for the first wave.
It creates an experience that feels premium, which matters for a certification's perceived value. If the exam is a grueling in-person affair with a proctor watching, people take it more seriously than if it's a multiple-choice quiz they can take on their couch.
The psychology of certification value is its own field of study. There's a concept called "effort justification" — the more effort someone invests in obtaining a credential, the more they value it and the more they advocate for its value to others. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle. Hard certs become prestigious certs because the people who pass them become evangelists.
Which is why the "lightbulb management" certs Daniel joked about never gain traction. If you can get the cert by watching a two-hour video and passing a twenty-question quiz, there's no effort to justify. Nobody brags about it. Nobody hires based on it.
The market is getting more sophisticated about distinguishing the two. Hiring managers in tech have learned to recognize which certs are rigorous and which are resume padding. The CISSP for security professionals — that's a serious credential with a years-of-experience requirement and a six-hour exam. The CompTIA A plus is a legitimate entry-level IT cert with performance-based questions. But there are also "certified blockchain expert" programs that are essentially just expensive PDFs.
Let's bring this back to Daniel's specific question. Can a solo operator get a vendor partner certification? The answer, based on the current landscape, is: it depends on the vendor and the tier, but generally no for the top tiers, and maybe for the lower tiers. And for Anthropic specifically, it's too early to say, but the pattern of every other platform suggests he'll have a path eventually — probably not to the top tier, but to something that provides a meaningful credential.
I'd add: the credential might matter less for a solo operator than the knowledge and the network that come with pursuing it. Going through the certification process, even if you don't get the partner badge, forces you to learn the platform systematically rather than just the parts you use day to day. And the partner network itself — the community of people who are also pursuing or have achieved the cert — is a source of referrals, subcontracting opportunities, and technical knowledge sharing.
The network effect of certifications is underappreciated. The Salesforce MVP community, the AWS Community Builders, the Microsoft MVPs — these are ecosystems where certified professionals share knowledge and opportunities. For a solo operator, that community can be more valuable than the badge.
It's worth noting that the AI platform space is still early enough that being an active, visible practitioner can carry as much weight as a formal certification. If Daniel is building interesting things with Claude, publishing about it, speaking about it, contributing to open-source projects that use Claude's API, that public track record may open more doors than a partner badge would. The certification is a shortcut signal. The public portfolio is a richer signal.
The richer signal takes longer to evaluate, though. A procurement manager scanning a list of potential vendors can filter by "Certified Partner" in two seconds. They're not going to read your case studies at the filtering stage. That's where the badge has a functional advantage that a portfolio can't replicate.
The badge gets you past the first filter. The portfolio wins you the work once you're in the room. You need both if you're playing in the enterprise space.
Unless you come in through a referral, which bypasses the filter entirely. For a solo operator, the referral path is often the highest-percentage play. Build a reputation with a few clients who will vouch for you, and the badge becomes less necessary.
The referral path is the traditional consulting model. It's slow to build but durable once established. The certification path is faster to signal but requires ongoing maintenance — you have to recertify, you have to keep your partner status current, you have to hit revenue thresholds year after year. For a solo operator, the maintenance burden of partner status might outweigh the benefits.
That's a calculation Daniel will have to make when Anthropic publishes their program details. What's the annual cost in time and money to maintain the partner badge, and does that cost generate enough additional business to justify itself? For a firm with twenty consultants, the math almost always works. For a solo operator, it's less clear.
Let me add one more dimension that I think is underexplored in the certification discourse. There's a geopolitical angle here. The US government is increasingly interested in AI model evaluation — there was that Bloomberg report about AI firms giving the government early access for testing. If Anthropic is building a partner ecosystem that includes firms working with government agencies, those partners are going to need clearances, compliance frameworks, and certifications that go well beyond what a commercial partner program requires.
The partner program might bifurcate into a commercial track and a public sector track, with the public sector track requiring FedRAMP, CMMC, or other government-specific certifications on top of the Anthropic partner badge. That's a whole additional layer of complexity.
It's relevant to Daniel's situation because he's based in Jerusalem. If he's serving clients internationally, he needs to navigate not just Anthropic's partner requirements but also data residency regulations, export controls on AI technology, and potentially different certification frameworks in different jurisdictions. The partner badge is one piece of a much larger compliance puzzle.
Which is why the "just show what you know" school of thought has limitations. In a regulated cross-border context, showing what you know isn't enough. You need documented proof that your practices meet specific standards, and certifications are the most efficient way to provide that proof.
That's the fundamental defense of certifications against the "they're all scams" critique. Certifications are a coordination mechanism. They let two parties who don't know each other establish a baseline of trust quickly. They're imperfect, they can be gamed, and they don't guarantee quality. But they're better than the alternative, which is every client doing their own due diligence from scratch.
The alternative is worse, but that doesn't mean the current system is good. It just means it's the least bad option we've found so far. And I think that's where Daniel's ambivalence comes from — he sees the value in certifications, he's not dismissing them outright, but he's also aware of their limitations and the structural barriers they create for small operators.
The structural barriers are real, and they're not accidental. Partner programs are designed to channel business to firms that can scale. The vendors want a manageable number of partners they can support effectively. If Anthropic had ten thousand solo operators all wanting dedicated channel manager time, the program would collapse under its own weight. The tiers exist to make the program administrable.
From the vendor's perspective, the solo operator is a risk. If Daniel wins a large implementation contract and then gets sick or takes on too much work, the project stalls. A firm with twenty consultants has redundancy. The vendor's reputation is on the line when a partner fails to deliver, so they're rationally biased toward larger organizations.
That bias is rational at the program design level, but it creates a market inefficiency. There are solo operators who are better at Claude implementation than entire teams at large consultancies. The partner program structure excludes them from opportunities where they'd deliver better outcomes. That's a loss for clients, not just for the solo operators.
It's a loss for Anthropic, because those solo operators are often the most passionate and innovative users of the platform. They're building things that push the boundaries. If the partner program doesn't find a way to include them, Anthropic misses out on the innovation that happens at the edges.
The platforms that have solved this best are the ones that created lightweight partner tiers with low barriers to entry but clear differentiation from the top tiers. AWS Select is the model. You get the badge, you get listed in the directory, you get access to training discounts. You don't get lead-sharing or dedicated support. It costs AWS almost nothing, but it gives the solo operator a credential that helps with smaller clients who are just looking for someone who knows the platform.
If I'm Daniel, I'm watching for Anthropic to announce something like a "Claude Registered Partner" tier — low revenue threshold, one or two certified individuals, basic listing in the partner directory. That's the sweet spot for a solo operator. And I'm not holding my breath for the top tier, because the structural dynamics are stacked against it.
In the meantime, I'm building the portfolio, contributing to the community, and cultivating direct client relationships that generate referrals. The certification, when it comes, will be a supplement to that foundation, not a replacement for it.
That's the right framing. The cert is a lever, not the foundation. For a solo operator, the foundation is always the work and the relationships.
One last thought on the Anthropic certification specifically. Given that Claude is an AI assistant, the skills being certified are going to evolve rapidly. A Claude certification from 2026 might look very different from one in 2028. The half-life of AI platform knowledge is shorter than the half-life of cloud infrastructure knowledge. So anyone pursuing this cert needs to be prepared for continuous recertification — not just a renewal every three years, but genuine re-skilling as the platform capabilities change.
Which is another argument for the portfolio approach. A portfolio evolves naturally as your work evolves. A certification is a snapshot. In a fast-moving field, the snapshot goes stale quickly.
Yet, paradoxically, fast-moving fields are where certifications can be most valuable, because the knowledge asymmetry between practitioners and clients is largest. Clients don't know what they don't know about AI implementation. A certification gives them a shorthand for "this person has been vetted by the platform maker." In a field full of hype and vaporware, that shorthand is worth paying for.
The paradox resolves when you realize that the certification's value is primarily for the client, not the practitioner. The practitioner already knows what they know. The cert is a communication tool, not a learning tool. And as a communication tool, its value depends entirely on the client's perception of the certifying body.
Which is why "Anthropic Certified Partner" will carry weight if Anthropic maintains its reputation for rigor and safety. If Claude is seen as the thoughtful, careful AI platform, then a certification from Anthropic will signal thoughtfulness and care. If the brand perception shifts, the certification's value shifts with it.
Brand halo is the intangible asset behind every certification program. People pay thousands for a Harvard extension course not because the content is uniquely excellent but because the Harvard name carries weight. The same dynamic applies to vendor certs. An Anthropic cert is valuable partly because of what Anthropic represents in the AI landscape.
That brand halo is fragile. One major safety incident, one high-profile partner failure, and the certification's perceived value can drop sharply. Certifications are trust instruments, and trust is easier to lose than to build.
We've covered the partner versus personal distinction, the tier structures, the barriers for solo operators, the workaround strategies, and the underlying economics. Let's summarize the answer to Daniel's core question. Can a solo operator get a vendor partner certification? For the top tiers of major cloud providers, no — the revenue, headcount, and customer reference requirements are structural barriers. For lower tiers, yes in some cases. For Anthropic specifically, too early to say, but the pattern of the industry suggests a lower tier will eventually emerge that's accessible to solo operators. In the meantime, individual certifications, public portfolios, subcontracting relationships, and direct referrals are the practical path.
I'd add: the distinction between personal certs and partner certs that Daniel drew is exactly the right lens. Personal certs say "I can do this." Partner certs say "my business is set up to do this reliably at scale." They answer different questions for different audiences. Confusing them leads to bad decisions about where to invest your time and money.
If you're a solo operator, invest in the personal certs that have rigorous, performance-based assessments and market recognition. Build the portfolio. Cultivate the network. And when the partner program opens up at a tier you can reach, evaluate it coldly — does the badge generate enough additional business to justify the cost and maintenance burden? If yes, pursue it. If no, keep building the foundation.
The unsexy truth is that for most solo operators, the highest-ROI activity is doing great work that generates referrals. Certifications are a force multiplier on a foundation that already exists. They're not a substitute for the foundation itself.
With that, I think we've earned a break from the serious stuff.
Now: Hilbert's daily fun fact.
Hilbert: In the early Renaissance, Venetian shipwrights developed a specialized knot called the "arsenal stopper knot," used to secure the largest hemp cables on war galleys — and at over fourteen inches in diameter when tightened, it remains the largest documented purely functional knot in maritime history.
That's a big knot.
This has been My Weird Prompts. If you want more episodes, find us at myweirdprompts.com or on Spotify. We'll be back next time.
