intev

If anyone else doesn't want to listen to the whole thing: https://apecast.app/podcast/the-knowledge-project/episode/op...

They think it's a smart way to say that the o.p. is dumb.

Because there's now a class of programmers who are very anti AI when it comes to coding because they think anybody who relies on it are degenerate vibe coders who have no idea what they are doing. You can see this in pretty much every single HN post w.r.t AI and coding.

What appeared as a good faith question, was answered in good faith and of course was later revealed to be a "gotcha" question. It's all so tiring.

"Oh so you drove all the way to my house? You couldn't walk?"

Anyone know how this compares to caprover?

This is a somewhat idealistic/naive view. If your project is even mildly successful and you get motivated to keep contributing to it more and more and form a strong community soon the leechers arrive. They start demanding more and more for literally nothing in return under the pretence that it's in the best interest of the project to add the features they want and to accelerate development.

It soon becomes exhausting to deal with them on a regular basis while still feeling good about contributing. People are faster to demand rather than appreciate and you start wondering what the point of all this is.

So yes, if you end up painting something that's like a high school project, sure, it's easy to leave it on the wall and not care. But if your painting starts getting displayed in galleries and there's a little "demand" for it, everything becomes a headache.

How is this different from Scrapy?

That has definitely not been my experience. The Made For Your section shows me tons of artists I've never heard from. I suppose it could be limited if you listen to a very specific niche where they don't have a large dataset on. I love finding new artists and then suddenly diving into a rabbit hole of discovering their older stuff.

Unfortunately the spotify music discovery is so good that I can't imagine leaving the platform :/

Did the NYT not do the most basic research on Elon, which would have shown his consistent history of this kind of behavior they are now criticizing him for.

Twitter wasn't as big back then as it is now. Earlier all his thoughts were kept mostly to himself and social media wasn't as big. Twitter amplifies his inner thoughts. People don't seem to like it.

Love the humblebrag. This "investing" method works until once day it doesn't. Don't get me wrong, HN is wrong a lot of times. Those two specific examples are about companies that are monopolies for all intents and purposes. Google and Meta pretty much control their primary markets. Tesla does *not* control their primary market. In fact it looks like their competitors are closing in on them very fast. No one was closing in on Google Search or Instagram/Whatsapp. The numbers never indicated that at any point in time. For tesla on the other hand...

Good Luck :)

India has rampant corruption. Almost all the "winners" in bids are pre selected. There is no real competition, hence the fat profit margin. To be fair, a significant part of the "profits" gets sent up the food chain to ensure more contracts keep coming.

This is almost never true unless it's a life saving drug. Xerox literally had the keys to the kingdom for years before multiple people came along and figured out how to get the "tech" to mass market.

And that's the ceiling for how much you can get away with while not paying artists anything.

OpenTTD is a cult classic and has no mass market appeal.

Other than the watch, all the products you mentioned are before 2002. Anything in the past 20 years that have been huge misses in delivering up to expectation?

Also how is the 1st gen watch a failure? It sold millions immediately, and was a huge commercial success. It pretty much started a gold rush for digital watches again.

I think it's fair to say the new "Apple" (last 15 years or so), has been pretty good with exceeding expectations and breaking through barriers that other companies just couldn't.

demos that failed to deliver actual user value

Does Apple have a a history of doing this?

I think that's why people are excited.

For an extremely short period of time so it's pretty meaningless.

Thank you for saving me a few hours. Really appreciate it.

I'm starting to listen to fewer and fewer of his podcasts. For me the decline has been has been obvious with some of his recent guests. I thought the Aella one would be very interesting, but as another commenter mentioned, he had an "impress me" vibe the entire time and couldn't even connect a little bit with the guest. Then the Sam Harris one exposed his weaknesses very obviously. If you want to see him being defensive and not say any of substance, that's a good one to listen to. Sam makes a lot of great points and he just goes on and on about the "power of love" and how we are all "human beings" trying to be "understood". After a while it gets irritating because it's like hearing a broken record player. Him unable to either provide a coherent argument to why he aired the Kanye episode or admit it was a mistake was very telling. That episode has more Elon worshipping as well. He tried to get Sam to reconnect with Elon and become friends again. lol.

His postcasts are on average above Joe's quality (don't listen to anymore, but used to years ago), but I think it's primarily because of whom he selects as his guests. At least Joe was significantly more entertaining. Might try going back to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Have you ever lived in the area? I'm 100% sure you have't because of how you're framing this. Off campus housing is extremely expensive. Stanford doesn't really provide any affordable options off campus because they have all the housing they need in campus. The only students who live out of campus are local students and MBA students.

Do you expect undergrads who fly come from Missouri to start paying 2k/month for housing? I'm sorry but your solution is an imaginary one that doesn't apply to Stanford. NYC is completely different because you can practically live anywhere there and use the great public transportation network to get to where you want to go. If you live in East Palo Alto (cheapest area), good luck getting to class.

It's misleading because, practically speaking, the type of people who are after the performance you advertise, are running clusters to begin with. So what you are selling is just a simplified stack that lets you not have to manage one more "system". That's fair but you could mention that? Or atleast acknowledge that if you repeat these tests with redis cluster the results will be wildly different and you wont have those crazy looking charts.

For example it's like me claiming that my new python web framework is X faster than Flask because it comes bundles with uwsgi. Yes, technically mine is faster, but its not a fair comparison.

They chose those numbers because they wanted a fair comparison with their benchmark instance of AWS c6gn.16xlarge. Says so in the 4th paragraph.

What's odd is that they probably saw the reply but they still chose to re-iterate their misleading claims rather than not mentioning anything.

I think you're strawmanning here. I'm not against deposit insurance. I merely suggested it should actually be part of the banking regulation.

Like maybe it's a default line item monthly fee to insure your deposits and you can choose to opt out of it. The default is to protect your funds. My guess is very few people will opt out, including me.

IMO banks should be doing this anyway (insure deposits). I think most time founders are so engrossed in product-market fit and growth that finance is after thought. You're provided an "army" with VC cash and you are expected to be own an entire category with that army. It seems rational to me that most people would be thinking strategy and future attack plans rather than the extremely rare chance that the whole army itself gets kidnapped.

Ideally we as a society, should be able to offer people peace of mind to deposit large sums of money and not worry about it being lost. Expecting everyone to perform financial gymnastics just to keep their money feels like a complete waste of resources.

Maybe the solution is to create a tier A bank that gives you no returns, charges you a flat fee, and any amount of money deposited is guaranteed. I know people do that with treasuries, but thats a lot of extra steps to put money in and out.

Keep in mind, tiny teams with no "finance person" easily receive more than 1M as part of seed or series A. Very rarely is their first hire for managing that money. Should it be? Is it worth it? Or should you rely on the financial system and regulation protecting your own money.

Are you serious? How do you think companies that earn over 1M per month operate? Do you think they all receive the cash on the same day and make the payouts on that day itself?

you should have had to accept the risk that you might lose anything above those $250k.

This laughably impractical. If you run any medium/large SaaS company you have payments continuously rolling in and you have to build up a balance to pay the salaries. The bank account is in a constant state of flux and a lot of times its at multiples of the insurance limit because a certain payment hasn't gone through yet, and a large advance just came in. Are you expecting every company to risk manage these large amounts in real time? Is that where companies should be spending their resources on? What's the point of having financial institutions and regulations when you're expected to micro manage basic aspects of the financial rails the whole economy runs on.

Agreed which is why I made my initial point.

You seemed to want to speculate about how this is all some conniving trap based on their price and I simply pointed out why that's bad speculation using an example in a different industry. I rest my case.

But let's be realistic here.

Let's. If I were to rent an instance for short bursts of time, I would be paying many multiples over a constant use instance. If I were to guarantee usage for x years, where the larger the X, the greater the discount. So already the delta between sporadic usage, X years use is large. There is evidence for this price discrepancy within all the cloud providers so this is not speculation. The the price difference is massive.

If you want to save even more cost, you could rent out VPSes or baremetal. They are insanely cheap, and compared to an AWS on demand instance the difference is night and day. Try comparing Hetzner with AWS. Hetzner, as far as I can tell, is not trying to entrench me into their system by offering extremely low prices. Nor are they a charity. I might even say they are an "open" hosting provider. To me it feels like they are passing along most of their savings and taking a small cut.

This is what it feels like to me what openAI is doing. I don't think their prices are so low its unprofitable. But because of their immense scale, its so much cheaper than me running an instance. I don't have to jump into conspiracy land to come up with a reasoning.

The fact that they've put themselves into a position to be bought out is its own strong signal they are considering exit strategies.

This is 100% not true. Companies don't have to put themselves in a position to be bought to have offers thrown at them. There are literally 100s of examples of this. Every company can be bought for a price. That's primarily the mismatch. This is the reason Instagram and Whatsapp sold for the prices they did at the time they did. When they were bought, everyone was shocked at the obscene sum of money for such a small team. In hindsight amazing purchase, but at that time Zuck had to throw an obscene sum at them to get them to say yes.

Also public companies have a fiduciary duty consider *all* offers and see if its valuable for shareholders. At a certain price, it will become a, no brainer, extremely valuable offer. The only other hurdle is getting the ok from regulators which is where they are stuck now.

The rest of your response hinges of the fact that we don't know the unknown variables and therefore the decision is not simple. But this argument could be made for literally every decision in life and we would all be stuck doing nothing. We have to make decisions based on what we know and accept that there will be a margin of error. Ideally we also know all the risk factors but that's literally impossible.

They charge that amount (on loss)

Is this a fact or are you speculating? Because the rest of your sentence falls apart if this is not true.