Exercising less dependence on a single company for everything seems like a good thing, but I'm struggling to really ground that principle against the convenience of just buying "what works." Does it really matter at the end of the day?
223 karma · joined September 8, 2017
Exercising less dependence on a single company for everything seems like a good thing, but I'm struggling to really ground that principle against the convenience of just buying "what works." Does it really matter at the end of the day?
"In the near term" is doing some heavy lifting.
In practice, I tend to just use the default on Claude Code that works well enough. But I wonder to what degree other users really play around with these settings to optimize for their project.
This seems like the pharmaceutical method of get them hooked on the drug with free samples, then once they can't live without it, raise the price. I'm not sure I want to start using Claude Fable on a max plan if it's just going to go away on June 23rd.
But maybe the more charitable reading is that they didn't have to offer this model at all on those plans and they are giving the standard free trial.
An electric Roma successor would have been much better received and possibly cheaper for them to develop (who knows?).
The silver lining in all this is that it means that the EV arm will not cannibalize their ICE cars.
I would guess a lot of the enterprise customers would be willing to pay a larger subscription price (1.5x or 2x) if it means that they would have significantly higher stability and uptime. 5% more uptime would gain more trust than 5% more on a gamified model metrics.
Anthropic used to position itself as more of the enterprise option and still does, but their issues recently seems like they are watering down the experience to appease the $20 dollar customer rather than the $200 dollar one. As painful as it is personally, I'd expect that they'd get more benefit long term from raising prices and gaining trust than short term gaining customers seeking utility at a $20 dollar price point.
Is this something you've thought about?
It's certainly getting frustrating having to remind it that I want all tests to pass even if it thinks it's not responsible for having broken some of them.
I completely understand that there are markets and customers that can find real utility in it, but I wonder how many businesses will really ever benefit from stablecoins.
We're in higher education, and potentially our international clients could avoid hiccups with regulation, delays, compliance, and more using stablecoins, but it's really a guess. In the meantime, the pricing model of stripe seems to prioritize bigger and bigger clients.
That being said from Stripe's perspective stablecoins an easy bet to make. They win by building payment infrastructure within the traditional payment ecosystem and win by providing an alternative completely outside of it.
It’s rewarding to seem him attempt a reconciliation between some modern epistemologies and Augustinian Thomism. I’m not sure he really pulls it off but his stature as a thinker in moral philosophy is undeniable.
EB was great at the beginning, but as the number of connections to other AWS and third party providers increased, it has become incredibly clunky to tweak the build files. What's even worse is that when something does go wrong -- which it inevitably will -- it's extremely hard and slow to debug exactly what went wrong.
Using it with celery has also been rough.
All of that being said I'm ambivalent about having EB on this list. I think it's a good product that has languished partially due to three reasons:
1. AWS having too many overlapping tools (AppRunner, Lightsail, ECS, etc.) 2. AWS haven't added or prioritized as many new features on EB for years 3. The devOps tooling is much more mature these days.
I think Shakespeare is better if you suspend belief a bit in some plot machinations and enjoy the work as performed and written. It's not that you shouldn't analyze the work and think deeply on its themes, but I find that many approach Shakespeare as a philosopher first rather than as a playwright and poet.
It's hard to argue that there's clearly a major risk involved in attending a program like this, but at the same time it seems to be working for some individuals. Would these high-achieving individuals be able to teach themselves? Possibly. But I'm not sure that going back to the traditional college route is the right choice either. And how can we better help those who lack the aptitude or enjoyment of programming and find out too late into these programs?
Even the term "work-life" balance seems to assume an artificial divide between the two. When work is a facet of a rich life, those extra long hours, the grueling commute, the vacillations of the newest management fad are just not worth it. Not to mention that those with families are severely disadvantaged in a workplace that values hours at the office rather than productive hours.
I am curious to find out how this becomes a culture and whether this is reversible? Does this toxic overstepping begin at companies who once valued a predictable balance between work and life or was there a mistake made in company culture from the beginning? Can a company effectively counter this tendency? However you might answer these questions, it seems clear that throwing new studies out showing that overwork is counter-productive is not changing this trend. It goes back to the age-old idea, knowledge doesn't make you good, just more knowledgable.
Without initial guidance and a firm commitment, we end up with questions like, "Should I learn Java or Javascript?" or "Can I learn Go in a week?" Is it possible to self teach completely? Yes. But you would need both discipline and analytical rigor as well as the humility to find help when you run into issues. I went into the bootcamp looking for both a mentor, which I found, and connections, which I also found.
Bootcamps can direct an analytical inclination, but rarely, if ever, create it. I am not at all sure that the conclusion is that bootcamps are ineffective. The issue is not with bootcamps as such, but with those who believe that the hard work is done by just showing up for lecture or doing the minimum in homework. I like to think that bootcamps are just an extension or tool to employ as an autodidact.
There has always been a divide between those jobs which require a more rigorous foundation and jobs which need someone to bang out some semi-workable code for a website. Bootcamp grads are often under the wrong impression that they are qualified for the first type without some experience doing menial tasks.