> The market decided a long time ago that movies, songs, books, photographs etc were, in fact, worth nothing. That's the effect of digital media. It's completely incompatible with the free market.
This is such a willfully ignorant take, it’s wild. Anyone who has a cursory understanding of game theory can see that if this were true a simple recursion would occur:
1. Everyone would pirate movies/tv/books.
2. There would be $0 in producing media.
3. Significantly less media would be produced. Anything capital intensive would be gone.
4. Demand for anything that could be produced would skyrocket. Imagine putting together a blockbuster film when the world hasn’t seen one in a century.
5. People would pay money for the product of 4.
Just because we can get something for $0 doesn’t make it worth $0. I could enslave my neighbors and make them work for me, that doesn’t make human labor worth $0.
It's not an ignorant take, it's reality. If you don't want that outcome, stop supporting outdated economic theories. I didn't say I wanted this to be the case, I said it is the case. The only reason digital media is sellable at all is due to laws and regulations. Not only are these laws and regualtions historically anathematic to those who defend the outdated economic theories, they're also protecting the wrong people. The distribution networks get a much larger share of profit than the actual creators.
People should exchange money for digital goods. That money should go primarily to the creators of those goods. None of this is happening very much, and it's actually moving in the wrong direction.
Ah! I think I missed your point because I read your comment through the lens of the root comment. My apologies!
We’re actually largely in agreement, especially about content creators deserving compensation and the fact that distribution is vacuuming up most of it.
> It is my opinion that, as with anything that can be copied infinitely for free, his (and my) personal information is worth $0.
I realize I’m responding to an account created four minutes ago but… the output of nearly all work done on a computer meets this criteria. Is all work done on a computer worth $0 in your view?
>I realize I’m responding to an account created four minutes ago but… the output of nearly all work done on a computer meets this criteria. Is all work done on a computer worth $0 in your view?
Yes. Also, this website is very pro-piracy, which means they generally agree with me. (Saying this last part because by mentioning the age of my account it seems you're accusing me of being a troll,)
Interesting! I imagine this website is also full of software developers, startup founders, VCs and others who earn a living in software. How do you reconcile all of that work actually being worth $0 with the fact that we are earning a living?
Sure you can cherry pick an example that would be difficult for me to monetize.
However I can think of plenty I’d do with the model weights for ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini. Can’t you?
I can go on with hundreds of examples. The Waymo source and models, as another example. Enumerating everything would detract from the message so I’ll stop here.
How is the Windows support in Ratatui? I recently developed something with a different library (also crossterm based) only to discover it did not work very well for my windows users and ended up having to build a GUI with Iced.
There’s a very real chance I just missed some initialization code that Ratatui might do out of the box that the other library was not.
Edit: Issues experienced by windows users were no colors, terminal flashing on every keypress, all keypresses registered as double.
Edit2: This miniature rant inspired me to go back to the commit and submit a patch to eliminate the event reporting on KeyUp and enable terminal colors.
When people buy a car they sometimes get a loan from the auto manufacturer’s financial services arm. What they don’t usually get are warrants struck at a penny for 10% of the manufacturer.
You sound like you know what you’re talking about. I only think I know what I’m talking about. Help me understand: What am I missing in the OpenAI / AMD deal that makes it non circular?
OpenAI: We need lots of GPUs, you make GPUs, but your GPUs are not quite equal to Nvidia's GPUs. And we are a growth startup, we don't have a lot of cash, can you give us a hefty discount on those GPUs?
AMD: We need cash too, you know? We'd love to sell you those thousands and thousands of high end GPUs, that would cover some of our R&D, and we could one day match NVidia. But we don't swim in cash either. We can't give you the discount.
OpenAI: What can you give us? You must be able to throw in something there. Otherwise, honestly, we can't make the deal.
AMD: What if we give you some equity? And if our deal goes well, and our GPUs start being viable alternatives to Nvidia's, maybe we'll be able to get close to Nvidia's market cap and even surpass them, just like we did with Intel.
OpenAI: Brilliant. We love it.
AMD: Yes, but that equity will be contingent on how the deal goes.
> You sound like you know what you’re talking about.
Honestly, I'm not an expert either, but I've run a company, and I can all but guarantee that credit_guy above really does not know what he is talking about.
I've replied else-thread, in detail, on exactly why his analogy to mortgage and car loans are incorrect.
His main point that "these deals cannot be circular because mortgage and car finance are not circular" is incorrect. The mortgage and car finance deals are not analogous to the Nvidia/OpenAI or AMD/OpenAI deals.
My understanding is every individual item is tracked in an Amazon warehouse - so Amazon knows that the 67th item in a box from supplier X was shipped to user Y.
They don't just track quantities of SKU's like most other retailers.
Why did they not choose to use it for both (or neither)? I.e., what reasons for using FreeBSD on CDN servers would not also apply to using them for API servers?
They are extremely different workloads so.. everything?
The CDN servers are basically appliances, and are often embedded in various data centers (includes those ran by ISP's) to aggressively cache content. They care about high throughput and run a single workload. Being able to fine tune the entire stack, right down to the TCP/IP implementation is very valuable in this case. Since they ship the hardware and software, they can tightly integrate the two.
By contrast, API workloads are very heterogeneous. I'd have to imagine the ability to run any standard Linux software there would also be a big plus. Linux clearly has much more vetting on cloud providers than FreeBSD as well.
Can't you fine tune linux as well? Does FreeBSD perform better somehow on a CDN workload? I find it difficult to imagine that the reason is performance. But I don't know what the reason is.
tl;dw: the performance, the efficiency of development, the community, FreeBSD is a complete operating system, the code base is smaller, the ports system, and the license.
Also potentially a reason: According to drewg123, Linux's kTLS was broken. Which I see drewg123 also commenting in this thread. Is he the "Drew on my team" mentioned in the first video? Is he the speaker in the 2nd video? Idk https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28585008
Until a few years ago most projects at Netflix were done with a handful of engineers ( <= 6 ). A dozen people working on something would have been considered very large. Four dozen would have been considered a company wide effort.
Netflix is still pretty cash-heavy on average, though with a lot more compensation going towards stock options in recent years. They let the employee choose the ratio. They pay extremely well, but this comes along with very high hiring standards and a very difficult culture.
The culture was and still is as you have described, with massively high pressure, "radical candor" taken to arguably very unhealthy levels, and with no hesitation in firing you. This is a major reason why, despite the fact that I am a video engineer with a film background who lives walking distance to 2 of their campuses and has a great amount of respect for their technical achievements, I never apply there.
I don’t really think that it is. Evolution is a random search, training a neural network is done with a gradient. The former is dependent on rare (and unexpected) events occurring, the latter is expected to converge in proportion to the volume of compute.
why do you think evolution is a random search?
I thought evolutionary pressures, and the mechanisms like epigenetics make it something different than a random search.
Evolution is a highly parallel descent down the gradient. The gradient is provided by the environment (which includes lifeforms too), parallelism is achieved through reproduction, and descent is achieved through death.
The difference is that in machine learning the changes between iterations are themselves caused by the gradient, in evolution they are entirely random.
Evolution randomly generates changes and if they offer a breeding advantage they’ll become accepted. Machine learning directs the change towards a goal.
Machine learning is directed change, evolution is accepted change.
It's more efficient, but the end result is basically the same, especially considering that even if there's no noise in the optimization algorithm, there is still noise in the gradient information (consider some magical mechanism for adjusting behaviour of an animal after it's died before reproducing. There's going to be a lot of nudges one way or another for things like 'take a step to the right to dodge that boulder that fell on you').
There's still a loss function, it's just an implicit, natural one, instead of artificially imposed (at least, until humans started doing selective breeding). The comparison isn't nonsense, but it's also not obvious that it's tremendously helpful (what parts and features of an LLM are analagous to what evolution figured out with single-celled organisms compares to multicellular life? I don't know if there's actually a correspondance there)
This is such a willfully ignorant take, it’s wild. Anyone who has a cursory understanding of game theory can see that if this were true a simple recursion would occur:
1. Everyone would pirate movies/tv/books. 2. There would be $0 in producing media. 3. Significantly less media would be produced. Anything capital intensive would be gone. 4. Demand for anything that could be produced would skyrocket. Imagine putting together a blockbuster film when the world hasn’t seen one in a century. 5. People would pay money for the product of 4.
Just because we can get something for $0 doesn’t make it worth $0. I could enslave my neighbors and make them work for me, that doesn’t make human labor worth $0.