BrenBarn

44 ms·

841.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
I basically agree with the post and it's similar to what I was saying in comments on another post a few days ago. Trying to impose piecemeal conditions on monopolists is more trouble than it's worth. They should just be forcibly
842.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
>What they say is taht if your business is extremely successful, it can keep being extremely successful and you can keep control over it. > You just cannot accumulate more money for yourself. If that's what it means, I don't
843.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
Private equity companies should also be destroyed.
844.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
> Which I believe to be a net negative to the US, and world, some may disagree though Yes, I disagree. If we can't have Google without monopolism then we should have neither. Treating Google as essential in this situation is like
845.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
The main reason I've encountered is that async is generally an all-or-nothing thing. It's generally not possible to take an existing code base and just "add a little async here and there". The entire thing has to be re
846.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
The difference is once you bought one of those chips you could do your own innovation on top of it (i.e., with software) without further interference from those well-funded companies. You can't do that with GPT et al. because of the s
847.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
Who has the most Colonel Mustards and conservatories?
848.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
> Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divestiture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints. This is the problem. It doesn't matter if they used those specific assets to perpetrate these sp
849.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
They put the LOL in monopololy.
850.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
Ouch, sounds like bad luck. Best wishes for the recovery.
851.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
Not really possible in a comprehensive way.
852.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
Then why say that it is that? It makes much more sense to me to say "The project is a beta that does X Y and Z and we hope it will eventually become this amazing seamless hassle-free thing." I don't get why projects don&#x2
853.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
I suppose this is it. I just find it irritating when project descriptions don't clearly distinguish what they hope to eventually be from what they currently are.
854.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
Something seems a bit off about the combination of hype and disclaimers here. First it's "seamless integration". Then it warns me that I should "expect to occasionally run into hiccups and bugs" and "should b
855.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
It's very convenient that, after releasing tons of such models into the world, they just happen to have no choice but to keep making more and more money off of new ones in order to counteract the ones that already exist.
856.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
Agreed. There was similar discussion around "the free and open web" on this thread some days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45066258 I think some people lose sight of the difference between the theoret
857.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
Well, an umbrella for nations or a sledgehammer for companies. I'd say just start shredding large companies left and right.
858.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
I think you're right but I'd say it even more generally: we just can't let companies get so big that they can do these things without facing pushback and competition from other entities.
859.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
> The CTO at my previous job tried Claude Code and really liked it so he said that all the devs had to use Claude Code in our work Imagine this sentence with "Claude Code" replaced by anything else and "CTO" and &quot
860.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
> AI should not be a goal in itself This is true of all technology, and it's weird to me to see all this happening with AI because it just makes me wonder what other nonsense bosses were insisting people use for no reason other than
861.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
Why? It seems you already know what people mean by "open and free", and it does have a connection to the ideals of openness and freedom, namely in the systemic context that I described above. So why bother about the terminology?
862.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
Using "open and free" to mean "I actually want no restrictions at all" is also confusing and disingenuous, because, as you yourself point out, a lot of people don't mean that by those words. The other thing, though,
863.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
This has more options than typical online typing speed tests, but I'm not sure I'd say it's more "fun" or "immersive".
864.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
The thing is that rhinoceroses aren't well-behaved. Even if some small fraction of them in theory might be well-behaved, the effort of trying to account for that is too small to bother. If 99% of rhinoceroses aren't well-behaved
865.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
> Why was it OK for Google to incorporate their words into a for-profit search index which has increasingly sucked all the profit out of the system? It wasn't okay, it's just that the reasons it wasn't okay didn't bec
866.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
No, that is not true. It is only true if you just equate "AI training bots" with "people" on some kind of nominal basis without considering how they operate in practice. It is like saying "If your grocery store is
867.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
Just hard-cap compensation.
868.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
I think that was the point. Everyone loves the dream, but the reality is different.
869.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
Truth is I thought it mattered. I thought that MUSIC mattered. But does it bollocks. Not compared to how people matter.
870.
by BrenBarn 1y ago
The bigger issue though is what makes any of us think that upholding the constitution is upholding justice, right, or any such substantive ideals?

More ›