redbluered

That's not quite the lesson.

Earnings did come, and the outcome of the internet include Google, Amazon, and others -- several of the ten biggest companies in the world.

In 2000, there was no sane way to predict who the success stories versus failures would be, timeliness, or otherwise.

AI will be a big change. We don't know how big, when, or who the losers and winners will be yet. Everything could be grossly overvalued or undervalued. We'll only know in hindsight.

Flatten plus debt is bad.

Debt presumes future growth.

You're a racist.

The way to tell between that and factual / culturally-fluent: were you able to any strengths of other cultures? Weaknesses of your own?

Or did you go off on an (in this case ill-informed) rant about "they bad"?

The way to cure it is a mixture of reading: business books on culture (like Meyer and Hofstede) and NATO ones. Those are places people need to work together, as opposed to woke ideology.

Then, application. Travel is good here.

I think these people do have our interests at heart, but that's largely irrelevant. Their point is that capitalist free markets don't let them act on that.

Capitalism and democracy are becoming obsolete. It's not clear what's next.

Neither existence nor nonexistence is obvious. Ergo, differences of opinion. Militants on both sides are problematic. I strongly dislike Dawkins, in the same way as I do people knocking on my door trying to convert me to any other religion.

At least the zealots who knockon my door. I've had a few good conversations.

Ditto for LLM sentience. We have no evidence either way.

No, Numerical Recipes isn't better. Or worse. It's a different book on a different topic, with there topic very clearly advertised in the title.

It's a series of... numerical recipes. Nice descriptions of many numerical algorithms sufficient to use them.

It's not focused on physics. It's also not rigorous.

The Sussman / Wisdom reference is rigorous.

Why would you post about a book you haven't read?

Should be modernized to Python or similar.

In 2026, I don't want to do numerical programming in C. That was fine 30 years ago, but today, I expect to have garbage collection or to be able to multiply a matrix as A×B.

License is a big deal, and not just for cost and openness, but also for practical use in pages like docker, ci/cd pipeline, cloud deployments, or other places licenses need to be dynamic.

Scmutils from MIT does a very good -- arguably better -- job for correctness. No symbolic integration by ideology and not identical. Sussman and Terman. Amazing attention to detailand correctness. Claude could probably bridge Scheme to Wolfram.

I'm not sure how important but- for-bug identical output really is.

Reality shows that the outcome are centers with a television on 24/7, or where kids are given drugs to sleep. That's not the exception but the rule. That's why inspections and licensing came in.

The longterm costs of that -- crime, mental health, etc. -- explain why subsidies make sense. Every rich country has universal public education for a good reason.

Market forces, as you point out, will drive your enterprising person making 72k out-of-business very quickly, and the market becomes a cesspool.

Cost of living for staff and lawful child to caregiver ratios. If you assume 1:4 or 1:5, that's around 100-125k per caregiver in tuition.

With reasonable overhead numbers (space, management, compliance, licensing, taxes, etc.), that's a poverty-level income for preschool teachers.

There is a strong argument for subsidies, at least in countries which have low birth rates and care about longterm social outcomes.

Has anyone verified this?

I've "solved" many math problems with LLMs, with LLMs giving full confidence in subtly or significantly incorrect solutions.

I'm very curious here. The Open AI memory orders and claims about capacity limits restricting access to better models are interesting too.

I think they are.

The key question is about why they want to you to use the CLI. If you're not the customer, you're the product.

There's also a monopolistic aspect to this. Having the best model isn't something over can legally exploit to gain advantage in adjacent markets.

It reeks of "Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run," Windows showing spurious error messages for DR-DOS, and Borland C++ losing to the then-inferior Visual C++ due to late support of new Windows features. And Internet Explorer bundling versus Netscape.

Yes, Microsoft badly wanted you to use Office, Visual C++, MS-DOS, and IE, but using Windows to get that was illegal.

Microsoft lost in court, paid a nominal fine, and executives were crying all the way to the bank.

I hate websites like this. I try to zoom in or out, and they carefully undermine me.

The only time I had to filter out a candidate was due to a quick check of his public social media where he was "enthusiastically" pro Palestine with questionable posts.

Sounds like a place I wouldn't want to work (and filtering for the reverse stance would be equally problematic).

Do you think things will work better if we have pro-Israel and pro-Palestine companies with the two groups never talking?

Employers would have to be pretty spiteful to look at it the way you purposed. I wouldn't want a spiteful employer.

The flip side is that a lot of government jobs lead to pretty good private sector opportunities working with those same agencies. If you want to contact to DOE, knowing how it works in the inside and knowing people there definitely helps.

A lot of military contractors are former military. Who better to design something for a soldier than a soldier?

The competitive advantage was supposed to be open, nonprofit, and good of humanity.

Yes. It is. Your database course was apparently broken.

Remember when AOL bought Time Warner?

I do think it's proven useful, much like the internet had in the nineties.

This will surely maximize quarterly profits until the next cloud or AI bust.

Diversification is resilience.

Putting consumer on hold makes some sense. An exit? This will be written about in business books.

The differentiation should be open source, nonprofit, and ethical.

As a shady for-profit, there is none. That's the problem with this particular fraud.

I think one issue is time.

We're a few years in. It takes time to figure things out and see returns.

The web and dot com boom and bust still led to several trillion dollar companies, eventually.

AI will transform my industry, but not overnight. My employer is within that 95%... but won't be forever.

The fork is better for normal people. There is no drama or controversy here.

Grant built a brilliant tool for himself. He's not interested in doing the work to make it useful to others, or even allow PRs to do so. He's glad to have others do that in their own fork.

The community edition does all the stuff needed to make this useful to anyone who isn't Grant. Everyone, Grant included, seems to appreciate that.

Grant's version has poor documentation, bugs, quirks, etc. Unless you're Grant, get CE.

Grant did the hard work of inventing this thing. That's harder than it sounds; many tried before and failed.

CE did the boring work of making it usable for others.

HN rule #1: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes

Click 'site guidelines' when posting. You'll see.

I don't like that rule, but it is a rule.

Which are where you learn.

Agarwal said that in public. Behind closed doors, he was completely cynical about impact. His primary goal was financial (for himself).

What happened was primarily due to personalities and misaligned incentives.

eInk.

I hate blinking lights in a bedroom.

What about Apollo Air? I have one of each, and they both check all the boxes.

I don't even have a preference. They both seem nearly ideal, depending on context.

One of my least liked HN rules. I'm from a culture where good- natured ribbing (snark) is not considered unkind.

I rather enjoy snark, whether by me, at me, or just reading.

I have your product. I like your product. I like your company. Fundamentally, I can't disagree with the review. You got unlucky, and the reviewer was looking for a different product. It happens.

It's not a universal product. Competitors have upsides and downsides, and different people want different things.

I think this is the time to move on, and focus on people so like and appreciate you, and not dwell on those who don't. Success brings more of both, and if you can't handle a few haters, you probably don't want to be too successful.

And reviews are imperfect, but a lot better than no reviews. Accept life isn't perfect.

Thanks for a great product and for running a company with integrity.