georgebarnett

What sort of positive effect would you expect?

What do you think is wrong with people over 60?

Again I disagree on cost. I just had a look again at what it costs to buy a company off the shelf in the UK (last place I did that). It’s about £299 and another £50 a year. Theres probably some other small change fees in there.

I completely agree on risk though and it highlights the core of the argument - building a business is time consuming and risky in a way that being an employee is not.

That’s one reason why business owners are able to capture more profit. They took more risk and placed themselves into a situation where their earnings are not bounded by a single contract.

Everybody has free will and could start a business but not everybody is capable due to skill, capacity, circumstance, etc.

Therein lies the irony. None of the people whining loudest will start a company because it’s risky and fraught with danger but they want all the spoils of ownership and responsibility.

If the worker in Shanghai had similar economic freedom and rights to workers in the west have then this would not be an issue.

Instead, useful idiots everywhere are proposing to add restrictions to the parts of the system working well.

This is a rediculous assertion.

To begin, you know nothing of the circumstances of millions of people. Certainly not enough to make sweeping statements.

In 2023, there were 5.5 MILLION new businesses started in the USA. Do those people all have generational wealth? of course not.

The reality is it’s easy to start a business but very hard to succeed.

Your overly abstract language has no value here.

Profit is not surplus value created by worker - that’s a 4 year olds understanding and negates all the other components of the system of which labour is only one.

We have tried “choosing” various “arrangements” (or more correctly, competing economic systems) and evidence points to capitalism being the correct approach to maximise liberty, growth and progress.

Take it from the workers?

Are you suggesting that workers do not have employment contracts where they agreed to trade labour for wages at a fixed price?

Workers always have the choice to take the risk of starting their own company for higher potential earnings.

What I'm wrangling with is this:

I agree that a particular sequence of words is copyrightable.

What I'm struggling with is that facts _about_ that corpus of text are not copyrightable. A simple fact could be that the word "bar" is the 5th word. The 6th word is "jazz". Etc.

A model is trained from these "facts" across many source documents. It is thus itself a derived 'fact' given a set of training inputs and parameters, so then how could _that_ then be copyrighted?

Put another way - there's the origin text and then.. is it turtles all the way down and none of it can be copyrighted because its all math and calculations derived from that?

Maybe I've got the completely wrong end of the stick here, but why isn't an AI model treated as a fact, given it's essentially a factual summary of the most likely bit sequences to occur given an input sequence?

NFS scales and operates incredibly well however it has constraints.

Like any tool, it has its appropriate uses.

Why would you exclude a useful tool from your arsenal because of perceived downsides that are easy to hide from the layer above with appropriate system design?

Perhaps we are speaking about different concepts. I was referring to the pace layered architecture.

Collaboration tools are some way from being systems of record and there is substantial difference between competitors. Generic chat apps are not yet useful enough (despite years of development) for most companies - IRC failing to win is evidence of this and so is the fact that companies aren’t switching en masse to run their infrastructure on whatever is the OSS flavour of the day. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen some day, but that day won’t be soon.

When coupled with the fact that there are still a huge number of companies which haven’t yet converted to using these tools and purchasing the market leader for a premium makes total sense.

With regards to component supply - companies that are producing unique chips are worth plenty, where as those that are making COTS components aren’t.

I disagree - tech _is_ software and it’s so ubiquitous that it’s essentially invisible.

With all industries are converting to software and every person on the planet moving towards owning a smartphone it surprises me that there’s an ongoing narrative that tech is collapsing.

If everybody thinks the sun will rise tomorrow, it won't.

Reminder: Nobody can predict the future.

She grew up with computing systems that had no concept of keyboard shortcuts and intentionally abstracted away the concept of the file system and documents.

I think her assessment of the situation is fair.

Sturgeons law (1950’s) states that 90% of everything is garbage. I see no reason why computers and software should be exempt.

I also do find myself chuckling at posts like this being upvoted on a website which also leans to new shiny things so heavily.

The problem will solve itself when folks start ignoring products that are half baked. I’m not holding my breath that will be anytime soon..

The change will happen slowly, and then very quickly.

Look to Australia where renewables are being installed at very high rates.

There are many areas where they are dominating the power mix for large portions of the day.

How long is the half-life of architectural best practice?

It seems to me that after ~10 years, half the cargo-culted ideas that young developers go all in on fail. Perhaps that's just long enough for them to get older and gain experience.

Perhaps the real issue here is the "thought leaders" who should know better but are perfectly happy to sell their ideas as risk free, when in fact these things are incredibly context sensitive to the team, problem and company shape.

Nobody ever seems to say "Do you believe what you're saying, or are you simply collecting a speakers fee?".

Right this very moment I have an iPhone 11 and a Pixel 5 in my pocket, both running fully up to date OS versions.

I keep two phones because of personal reasons not relevant to this discussion.

I prefer the iPhone.

This is a ridiculous assertion. Google won’t do anything like that. They’ll comply with the law, because they want European money.

Advertising can be helpful if it’s done carefully, with taste (Daring Fireball is a good example).

Apple it would appear are losing their taste which is a real shame, because they’re willingly giving up their edge over Google.

If I’m forced into ads, I trust Google to do them better.

I find it remarkable that the rest of Apple internally hasn’t politically shot the ads division in the face yet.

I find the generic “workers are important” quotes remarkable, in the sense that they do nothing but contribute to the sense that these companies really don’t care.

It would almost be better to say nothing.

Yes, I agree and its a significant concern I have. If this occurs, it may be quiet some time before we see another company able to cover this use case.

Nowhere good really. If they force through into the space, rather than (for example) limiting themselves to boosted App Store listings, that would be clear indicator to me that their internal priorities have shifted and would be a signal to begin migrating off of their ecosystem.

Advertising isn’t the problem - it’s how and where it’s presented and how that influences the rest of the system.

As Apple continues to deploy ads across their platform and where they “stop” will be a good indicator of their current taste and if it survived their long expansion without Steve Jobs at the helm.

People keep using the power plant analogy as if somehow there isn’t a massive shift towards solar and batteries, which are literally building a power plant on your roof.

One under discussed issue I’ve noticed is how the size of The compute sold to the end user does not increase at the rate the underlying hardware improves at.

It’s reasonable to presume there’s now an entire generation of developers who simply don’t know what’s possible in state of the art hardware.

Blocking the browsers isn’t a solution because they likely fall back to being open, so the user doesn’t notice.

Instead, you need to break the user experience so they complain to the developer of the app, thus impacting reputation.

It’s unfortunate that the browsers developers are unresponsive and this circumstance limits the available options to easy list.

I've been an Apple customer and a Facebook user for about the same duration.

In that time, Apple has taken many measures to improve security and privacy.

Facebook on the other hand has gone in the opposite direction, to the point of leaking data to hostile third parties and needing to be reigned in by the OS platform.

It's reasonable to trust Apple more than Facebook, simply based on demonstrated behaviour.

Putting aside the gatekeeping aspect of this comment, I found the rest of the arguments made for keeping this model closed really shallow.

I would have hoped for a much more reasoned and logically sound argument from a professional researcher.