rgavuliak

There's a difference between a hyperbole and being tone deaf.

Well paid engineers compare their experience to a labour death camp just confirms how out of touch they are.

Ultimately the management should care about what brings in the most revenue. A feature that brings low revenue but has no fire is something no-one cares about. If you have a ton of revenue and no bugs, you likely can get recognition.

European Roads and US roads are very different. US is much more car friendly.

For me the whole piping felt like making everything less readable and harder to debug compared to a string of commands.

This has a great SQL-ish API. Python is similar but starts to be a little clunky since it requires you to think about indices:

groupby has an as_index parameter for this very purpose

Deducting the discount

You focus on doing the subtraction during the group by. Is there any good reason for this? You could either do it as a step before, or after summing up both columns. Putting too many things into one command is not good practice yet you benchmark the language based on how easy it is to do said bad practice

The value-add that Microsoft brings to Github Copilot is near zero compared to directly buying from Anthropic or OpenAI

Over here in the EU, we need to store sensitive data in an EU server. Anthropic only offers US-hosted version of their models, while G-cloud and Azure has EU based servers.

I would measure data by time to action. If you're not actioning data it's worthless.

I do usually have a beer at the airport, but having more means you have more usage out of the plane bathroom which I can do without.

I like the saying - weeks of coding can save us hours of planning.

Why do you expect an LLM to provide an accurate distance metrics?

I have recently joined a corporation after years in start ups and 99 % of these apply too.

France is all about big government

Because it doesn't seem to work?

I don't think it's about perfect predictions. It's more about going all in on Metaverse and then on AI and backtracking on both. As a manager you need to use your resources wisely, even if they're as big as what Meta has at its disposal.

The other thing - Peter's principle is that people rise until they hit a level where they can't perform anymore. Zuck is up there as high as you can go, maybe no one is really ready to operate at that level? It seems both him and Elon made a lot of bad decisions lately. It doesn't erase their previous good decisions, but possibly some self-reflection is warranted?

Having worked in such companies, switching to that mode requires very different processes.

Interesting point

I think especially for Data Science, a lot of the curriculum got taken over by universities and new university programmes for Data Science were created since then so in a way it became common knowledge for fresh graduates.

MOOCs never achieved the transformative potential promised during the early hype.

I would disagree, I saw a lot of people, especially in the Data Science field that got up-skilled by back then free Coursera.

Nobody wants people who can do easy things, people want people who can do hard things.

No, people want people that can provide value regardless of the difficulty. What you're describing is how we end up with not invented here syndrome.

If anyone knew how to spot unicorns, the industry would be very different.

If no-one cared about opinions you would be fine with having just one newspaper that writes down the bare facts. The whole appeal of people paying for media is because they value the opinions on top of the facts that should ideally come from relevant experience/knowledge.

Because Czechia has lived through communism so its propaganda is aimed at a concrete period in history, same with nazism.

Also - law needs to be concrete enough to be enforceable.

Oh the ones that do everything to avoid paying taxes in Europe?

Publishers have just decided to put all their eggs in one basket

Isn't that just the ecosystem provided by the Big Tech ad platforms? Publishers at some point very much wanted to sell ads directly as the CPMs were 10x of what they are now. Then FB and Google took over as the middlemen, pushed CPMs down, added sophisticated targeting and set the precedence for how things are implemented.

Sure the tech giants could team up with the publishers to take back control but they'd need to share more of their revenue in exchange which I am doubtful they'd go for. Not just because it means losing control but also it creates the hassle of having to deal with a fractured landscape of publishers of very varying technical acumen.

I too worked for a start up that was a combo of services and tech, it too died because the founders got too greedy and tried to spin off a product out of it. Covid had an impact on the business, but I also believe things could have gone better if we could have stuck to a direction.

Wouldn't it then absolve me of my personal responsibility to reprimand the person?It's not me choosing to hold people responsible, it's just something that happens (or doesn't, depending on what was determined)

My point was that your preferences don't make for a good business model when it comes to micropayments.

What I am telling you that based on online readership patterns, people that read 25 and more articles per month don't make up for enough of a base to be worth monetizing at 2.3 cents per article. These are hard facts.

In this case the market evolution is the proof that micropayments are not feasible. Not one company succeeded running them, but you have plenty of news companies using subscriptions that scaled the approach and made significant revenues. These are lessons learned across hundreds of news sites. With all due respect, your opinion is just that - anecdotal.

Let's look at the economics, back when I was working in the paywall industry you had roughly 10% of users reading more than 5 articles on an average medium.

Let's say that you could get 2 % of these people to pay you $10 per month. With a readership of 1M that would mean you'd get (1000000 * 0.1 * 0.02) * 10 * 12 = $240k per year.

Now let's move that over to blendle, let's say that the average reader reads 1.2 articles per month (since most people only look at 1 article). Let's be super generous here - with a much larger conversion rate - 10 % of everyone buying 1 article per month month on average comes up to a comparable amount 100000 * 12 * 0.23 = $276k per month. And we're being generous here, remember - blendle abandoned this model so it almost certainly isn't equal to the metered model I used in my estimation above even if more users are willing to pay.

Now if you bring down the payment to whatever you're proposing you get to $27.6k or even 2.76k per YEAR. The napkin math is clear that this isn't feasible.

Interestingly enough you'd pay less as a "heavy reader" if you read 10 articles per month (which is a super small % of users on an average medium) with blendle (10 * 0.23 = $2.3) than with a subscription costing $10. But making the users count articles likely isn't great psychology as compared to buy and read everything you want. Which likely is perceived as a higher value offer.

And nearly the entirety of retail sales

Not really? Retail is mostly driven by normal transactions.

Aside from logistics, the problem with micro-transactions for news that I can see is that it would encourage only the more sensationalistic news and discourage the more mundane news that is likely more important for people to know.

Exactly - it essentially kills journalism that requires a lot of upfront research or work.