loeber

I have zero dollar exposure to $PLTR.

And no, you're moving the goalposts again. My comment is strictly about Nazis, not "nazi or fascist". If you can't even keep this straight, then my time is wasted on you.

You're moving the goalposts. The original poster wrote that Palantir is on par with the Nazis. (Typos notwithstanding.) That's what I'm responding to.

And yes, it is offensive and trivializing to the millions that were murdered to suggest that that their murderers were on the same moral footing as a modern government software consultancy. (The views that you read into some of their executives are, in fact, not equivalent to actions such as exterminating millions of people.)

You're out of your mind -- and politically radicalized -- if you think that Palantir is on part with the Nazis. And this kind of facile comparison is offensively trivializing those who died in the holocaust.

Replying:

1. It's not about technological development as an absolute metric, but as a relative metric. The current AI race is a winner-take-most game. Google must compete and shoot to become a $10T+ company or effectively go under. Those are the choices. I think the OP is naive about the middle ground.

2. I object to the OP's 2000s-era popular moral handwringing over America's military. America's military is a force for good in the world. You might think it's not perfect -- sure -- but you should seriously imagine a world without it: I think you'll like that one a lot less. Consider that the OP in this blog post might be wrong about his ethical position.

Downvoted. Stripe Atlas is a massively successful service that handles 100K+ incorporations annually. It's a key piece of Stripe's ecosystem support. You writing that you're "not sure who it's for" suggests to me that maybe you're out of your depth here as a general matter.

This is totally false, sorry. Delaware entities are the standard. Delaware corporate law is better understood than any other by a long shot. Dealing with a random non-Delaware LLC is usually a hint that your counterparty is a rube.

I wrote an article a few months ago about how I expect open-source development to shift toward people no longer contributing code, but just contributing money, for the maintainers to purchase tokens to have AI ship a given feature request.

It wasn't popular but I think it will hold: https://essays.johnloeber.com/p/31-open-source-software-in-t...

Unified charging cable: what if the standard had been set much earlier? For example, in 2008? We'd all be on Micro-USB, far inferior to USB-C. Right now USB-C feels great, but do you really think this is the end-all, be-all? I think the cost of this mandatory standardization will become apparent a few years from now.

> if you were not selling all that visitor information to anyone

Do you understand how rare it is for a company to actually sell its user data?

Say that to the people who can't afford them!

I worry that this ends up, like other EU consumer-protection regulation, as an own goal.

- The cheapest phones available in the EU (and purchasable online) all have glued-in batteries, not swappable ones. Forcing consumers to use phones with swappable batteries may just mean that the bottom of the market disappears, and consumers will be left paying more for their phones. And would they rather pay less or have swappable batteries?

- This will cause some cascade of engineering changes, which will make phones thicker or less waterproof. Again, it's not clear to me that the tradeoff is being fairly reflected here.

Same!

It's because we went from the Desktop environment, where rules were well-documented and standardized, to the Web/Mobile environment, where rules had to be reinvented and, for the most part, were not.

We've lost design idioms, which is a huge tax on users everywhere. I've been mad about this for years: https://essays.johnloeber.com/p/4-bring-back-idiomatic-desig...

If your deathbed is at the hands of an adversary that beat you because you didn't have any weapons, do you think your views might change?

I previously tried buying Apple for Business and it was an endless runaround with terrible signup nterfaces and having to call dumb flunkies. The whole process sucked and was disrespectful to their business customers, who do not have the time to deal with such nonsense.

Can you provide credible examples of each of these?

This stuff strikes me as misguided. Britain's Ofcom is sending censorship/deanonymization requests around the world, Germany prosecutes thousands of its citizens every year for "offensive" things said online... and you think Europe is a bastion of free speech or privacy? You might find that you have greater rights on US soil.

Interestingly, this suggests that the Lean Startup methodology is basically a suboptimal strategy that produces acceptable outcomes only in the most fruitful circumstances. You can start a Lean Startup that makes a little bit of money, but if you'd really bet big and put your back into it, you would've done 1000x better.

Shameless plug: I wrote an essay a few weeks ago pushing this exact same thesis. https://essays.johnloeber.com/p/31-open-source-software-in-t...

Instead of people buying the tokens themselves, they should just donate the money to the core contributors and let those people decide how to spend on tokens.

This is both (1) not necessarily true -- there's no first-principles reason why being powerful implies being unethical -- and (2) deeply pessimistic and defeatist. You can apply whataboutism and say that everyone's equally bad, but I assure you that there's a pretty big difference, even down to your quality life, between the types of systems you choose to participate in.

Comparing OpenAI and WeWork is a nonsensical perspective. OpenAI is shipping the most revolutionary product in a generation, with 800 million monthly active users. It's the fastest revenue ramp ever, at incredible scale -- $20B+ ARR. These are real fundamentals. They matter. And the cost of inference is coming down all the time.

WeWork was a short-term/long-term lease arbitrage business. The two are nothing alike.

Because offering to pay people to implement features is very expensive and tends to take a long time, if they do it at all. Often, they can't even find people to pay to implement things.

In the case of companies hiring Linux devs, that is is very, very costly and thereby inaccessible. Scale makes it different from the scenario of paying a few dollars to contribute tokens to fix a bug.

If you don't get it, then you should read the blog post and come back if you have questions.

Because donating to open source projects today has an extremely unclear payoff. For example, I donate to KDE, which is my favorite Linux desktop environment. However, this does not have a measurable impact on my day-to-day usage of KDE. It's very abstract in that I'm making a tiny, opaque contribution to its development, but I have no influence on what gets developed.

More concretely, there are many features that I'd love to see in KDE which don't currently exist. It would be amazing if I could just donate $10, $20, $50 and submit a ticket for a maintainer to consider implementing the feature. If they agree that it's a feature worth having, then my donation easily covers running AI for an hour to get it done. And then I'd be able to use that feature a few days later.

This is a deeply pessimistic take, and I think it's totally incorrect. While I believe that the traditional open source model is going to change, it's probably going to get better than ever.

AI agents mean that dollars can be directly translated into open-source code contributions, and dollars are much less scarce than capable OSS programmer hours. I think we're going to see the world move toward a model by which open source projects gain large numbers of dollar contributions, that the maintainers then responsibly turn into AI-generated code contributions. I think this model is going to work really, really well.

For more detail, I have written my thoughts on my blog just the other day: https://essays.johnloeber.com/p/31-open-source-software-in-t...

But it's not free. Persona is hugely expensive.

"Hold to skip tip" was devilish.

MacOS is the "it just works" operating system. As such, I think the moment that you need to declare custom workarounds like this, it kind of loses its legitimacy, and you should already be in Linux land.

I wrote about something very similar a long time ago.[0]

The key problem is that most contemporary web design does not follow any idioms. Idioms are conventions of design that are universally understood. Skillful use of idioms makes it much easier to parse what is going on on a given page.

Where we are with most applications is that they try to define their own idioms, i.e. their own icons, their own navigation patterns, etc. But this is very arrogant because they're assuming that the user has the time to build that familiarity with all those idioms. This is never the case.

Every day I use web applications from nominally mature companies, and they have totally different icon sets for the same actions. This is immensely distracting and hard to read. Every company sees an opportunity to define their own icons, when what they should be doing is using the exact same ones as everyone else because that makes it easy to understand.

https://essays.johnloeber.com/p/4-bring-back-idiomatic-desig...

But that's the point of the article. The state is failing in all of these dimensions, while state tax revenues and budgets have nearly doubled! We have more spending, but it's not fixing the issues. Many Silicon Valley people are upset about the ineffectiveness of this spend.

Now the spend is going to go even higher, driving out Silicon Valley in the process, but it will not achieve any of the objectives. In fact, it may be destructive to California on a whole.