Because that requires adoption. Devs on hackernews are already the most up to date folks in the industry and even here adoption of LLMs is incredibly slow. And a lot of the adoption that does happen is still with older tech like ChatGPT or Cursor.
It's funny how people complain about the rust belt dying and factories leaving rural communities and so on, then when someone wants to build something that can provide jobs and tax revenue, everyone complains.
How many people are employed at the average data center? A few dozen? Versus a steel mill, that’s nothing. A chicken plant in Nebraska closed down this last month. 3200 people lost their jobs. You think Meta will fill it with GPUs and the whole town will have jobs again?
Many more are employed while building it. And they will never stop building. It's modern version of rail. But instead of distances it will cover the area.
As if any taxes will be paid to the areas affected, and add to that the billions in taxes used to subsidize everything before a single cent is a net positive.
It's true that you can boil it down a lot. In fact, the book even has a checklist checklist that distills down the advice to one page. However it was overall a very quick read and the extra discussion really did further my understanding of the underlying principles that make a checklist good. I'd recommend reading the whole thing so that you actually make a useful checklist instead of a cargo-cult copy of an aviation checklist.
The world saw it's greatest peace under US hegemony. It wasn't perfect and there were bloody avoidable wars on the behest of the US, but by and large things ran smoothly and US sponsored globalism brought prosperity and peace to many.
Too early to make what call? Pax Americana could end tomorrow and it wouldn't make the statement false (well, it would if whatever followed was even more peaceful).
The bet, (I would have thought) obviously, is that AI will be a huge part of humanity’s future, and that Anthropic will be able to get a big piece of that pie.
This is (I would have thought) obviously different from selling dollars for $0.50, which is a plan with zero probability of profit.
Edit: perhaps the question was meant to be about how Bun fits in? But the context of this sub-thread has veered to achieving a $7 billion revenue.
The bet is that revenue keeps growing and unit economics turn positive (which you can't do if you sell a dollar, since no one will give you more than a dollar for it)
In some narrow contexts that is easy, but in many other contexts that is not easy, or doesn't actually solve it.
online programs, limited infrastructure, dishonest students exploiting accessibility programs, are some examples where it's easier to say than do what you're suggesting.
Also AI can help students cheat in class too. Smart glasses, pens with cameras and LED screens on them (yes really), or just regular smart phones. Even switching to pen and paper won't reduce the ease of access.
Instructors don't want to police cheating, they want to teach (or do research). Either way, they don't want to police.
Students cheat when they think what they're learning is low value, the learning process is too clunky, or they place too high a value on the grade. All these imbalances can be improved with better pedagogy.
The only enduring way to actually solve the cheating crisis isn't to make it harder, it's to reduce the value of cheating. Everything else is either temporary or performative.
I don't like unions because one bad hire can destroy a whole team, and the option to remove that hire is worth more than any benefit a union can give me.
I also think people here misunderstand what unions do. Unions are inherently conservative (small c) institutions that aim to protect the status quo. Improving processes is not a fundamental goal to unions. We saw this with the ILA that fought to essentially ban automation in the ports that would drastically increase efficiency because of the belief that this would reduce union jobs. It's foolish to think software unions wouldn't end up becoming like this.
I'd rather have the protections for my working conditions than worrying about whether my co-workers are contributing enough to the company's bottom line but maybe that makes me an outlier here.
I'd say it does. I take pride and meaning in working. Life's too short to not care about a thing you do 8 hours a day. And bad colleagues doesn't just include people not contributing enough.
> I don't like unions because one bad hire can destroy a whole team, and the option to remove that hire is worth more than any benefit a union can give me.
In MANY other countries there is already WAY more regulations regarding layoffs and firing employees that has nothing to do with unions.
In Germany there is a probationary period in which you can just fire somebody for no reason basically. That time can be like half a year (in my case) and in most cases it becomes clear if the new hire fits your team or doesn't.
All unrelated to unions though. The big unions in Germany for example have a lot of power and if you are just a simple welder for example you'd have no chance getting anything done without a union.
When your scope is Europe ... The US is not the exception in the world, it's Europe which is.
The US has a dynamic job market where it's easy to lose your job, but easy to find another one. In Europe, and that's true for most EU countries, it's really hard to lose your job, but it's also really hard to get one for the very reason it's hard to get fired - and when you get a job, you will have to compromise on compensation and other benefits. It's not black and white here. While the European market is appealing to some people, the US market is preferable to others.
> It's not black and white here. While the European market is appealing to some people, the US market is preferable to others.
I agree with that, it's a very individual topic. I'd say for high paying "high performance" jobs the US model definitely has an advantage but for low-wage jobs it's quite the opposite.
Counterpoint: Denmark has something called Flexcurity: "flexible" + "security". Basically, it means you can hire and fire more easily than traditional socialist market economies. There is a good social safety net, but it is (somewhat) time constrained to pressure people to return to work quickly.
To be clear, the modern programme started in the 1990s. That makes it about 30 years old. If it had major problems, I assume they would be fixed by now.
Re-reading your comment again, I'm not sure that I understand it: "Let's see whether Denmark remains competitive." What do you mean?
Did they vote left? And that's the same left pushing over and over the Chat Control? That's an interesting twist if it turns out it's not always the right wing trying to undermine privacy rights.
She is the European Commission president, that's unrelated.
But that made me curious, and answering my own question, it's this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hummelgaard who is indeed a Social Democrat .. So much about workers rights, funny ...
Poker is so much fun with friends. It's not about winning, it's about hanging out and being a little competitive. It's a great way to hang out in real life for a few hours in today's online world.
reply