amazingamazing

Their joint market cap

It really is sad that any disagreement with “pe is bad” means i am concerned trolling. Ever consider the guidelines are actually vague which is why usa keeps failing in attempts to enforce?

It did not work though. Bell and Standard Oil are notable examples. What else?

People keep bringing up Bell as if the situation now is not just as bad.

This logic is easily shown to not hold. Why isn't Carbon, Dart, etc. not really popular then?

This is vague and not actionable. Should Microsoft and Amazon have been able to buy Anthropic and OpenAI 5 years ago?

People always give these vague guidelines (and even the guidelines in the 80s were) and wonder why they are easily circumvented.

YComb was just an example, though. Should companies be able to be bought and sold at all? My opinion is yes. Agree or disagree?

How did the original businesses start to begin with? Also where is this information coming from? It isn't in the article.

Most of these are not blocking merges or sales. What is your point? We are talking about the original comment which advocates ending consolidations.

Your comment is entirely conjecture. Even if we assume it is correct, no young person is creating similar businesses? If so that’s the root cause, not PE, since the alternatives would be all of these businesses shut down anywhere per your reasoning, backlog increase and the remaining businesses increase prices anyway.

> ... they sold the original business to retire??

Conjecture unsupported by article

Given the vagueness it is no surprise nothing happens.

Seems vague. What is an anti trust reason? Figma and Adobe id a great example. Both are doing very poorly.

Whats the connection between the number of employees and anti trust? Also, there are plenty of YC companies with far more than 15 employees.

Your comment is the one that seems like fiction. You are saying PE is unbeatable? Per the article there is a backlog of orders. What is stopping one of the previous owners from creating another company and taking them?

Sue for what exactly? Of course they will be disruptive, that is what competing means.

How will that work - for example Y Combinator classes. They cannot be acquired? What about acquihires? Cant stop that - employees have their own agency.

Seems strange to me:

1. No one forced these people to sell. Is the idea that you can’t sell to an entity with more money? If you block that good luck with the world economy.

2. If above is ok is the idea that the new owner is inherently worse because they have more money, whereas as the smaller would be OK then where are the new entrants?

3. Going to the article it is clear enough. These industries just are not lucrative to begin with. PE buys them and raises prices, but this only works because people complain instead of starting rival business.

4. Somehow leaving money on the table in the form of a backlog is bad? Why don’t others start a business and take those orders? Why don't they? Not profitable or worth the hassle.

Well there you go.

Separately, American manufacturing just seems very uncompetitive.

Do you gave an example query? I am curious.

Im curious, what is your query?

So much for llms replacing search

Unironically, yes. One saving grace is in some ways, such as medicine and technology, more will be available to you, but not for less effort.

There are Americans working 24/7, though. Surely you have heard of people working multiple menial full time jobs? Jobs are being offshored and cheaper immigrants are being imported who can be paid less. What more evidence do you need?

We don’t know how massive the project is, but in any case building and immediately building again of course will be fast. How fast is it if all files have a single line changed, for example refactoring a log message?

Not to mention we haven't even gotten to discussing tests.

My point is that it isn't necessarily that fast. It is relative to the amount of changes and where they were made. For a fair comparison you would also have to present the worst case incremental build time which approaches the full build time (this goes for Go too), which per your own example is nearly a minute for rust.

Indeed, but is it the case that all bugs you have are those in which would be caught by the compiler? It’s not like rust code inherently is bug free.

I mean i wouldnt call a 100% a little slower wrt check vs build. In any case, the more you change the longer the incremental check or build will take.

> The whole process end to end may take longer for sure (ignoring things like the compiler catching more errors, that's really hard to factor in) but how does that correlate to more tokens?

This. rust emits more information both in its output and the syntax itself more complicated requires more tokens.

This will never happen for the simple reason that there are some countries whose members are poor and so they are rightfully ready to work harder and longer for opportunities.

A more important point is why is it that Americans objectively are richer yet feel poorer?

This is true if the token budget and time are not taken into account. In practice though, waiting minutes instead of seconds per build multiplied by prompt and again by change adds up very fast.

Go is more verbose, but Rust have more complex syntax which in practice require more tokens.

The big thing though is because builds are slower, you will end up waiting longer as tests are modified, rebuilt and run. This difference piles up fast.