HN user
One minute you are saying large companies use the product, the next that it was always for hobbyists and shouldn't target corporate features?
You are conflating 11ty with Build Awesome (pro)
That is not a business -- no profit motive. It is most definitely a business, even if you don't think it will make a lot of money. Also the whole point of comparison is claiming that people will not pay that much money for Build Awesome.
Anthropic have a pretty progressive corporate governance structure, so there is a good argument that they will stay true to their principles. However, this will likely be the biggest test for how strong that governance structure is up to now.
If competitors offer passable services for selling indie game developers, then indie game developers would be able to earn more money (due to competition).
This is why developers are hopeful for alternative services.
This is really the key here. Many people are commenting their experience as a games buyers, but this article is about the developers. Monopsonies are usually linked to lower wages in labor markets. In this case lower profits for developers from selling their games.
A $4.2 million seed round from Sequoia also didn't hurt. Maybe they were able to eat pizza instead of ramen because of that.
While what you mention is true, I'm not sure how it undermines the bitter lesson. Optimizing the use of hardware (which is what NNUE essentially does) is one way of "increasing compute." Also, NNUE was not a chess specific technique, it was originally developed for Shogi.
Those technologies offered actual utility, that's the difference.
I got the impression that DJB was criticizing the arguments for why quantum computers won't work. Not trying to demonstrate why they will work.
I recently read Cory Doctorow's "Chokepoint Capitalism" and William Deresiewicz's "The Death of the Artist" which both decry the sentiment that somehow Big Tech has been a boon for artists.
The reality is that anti-competitive practices in these companies has made them more of an extractive monopoly rather than a market to connect artists and art "consumers." To your point on revenue sharing, both Youtube and Spotify have laughable revenue shares to the point that even well known musicians have to tour nonstop to make ends meet. At what point does "exposure" benefit the artist more than it benefits the platform for having free art?
You're claiming Japanese in America are representative of Japanese in Japan which is not the case. It's straight up racist too.