eru

24 ms·

781.
by eru 4mo ago
> With a state program sending mail to a low density state could impact the pricing structure of a high density state. Yep, aligns incentives nicely! > You could end up with fragmentation where cross state is more expensive or worse t
782.
by eru 4mo ago
Yes, exactly. And spreadsheets took the world by storm. Deservedly though. Nowadays people (allegedly) buy a Mac Mini to run 'claw'. Back in the day, they bought a mac to run a spreadsheet.
783.
by eru 4mo ago
If that's what customers pay for, that's what they get.
784.
by eru 4mo ago
The obituary is not for learning who has died, but for getting to read an interesting article about them.
785.
by eru 4mo ago
Firings workers doesn't make earnings grow in general. And company don't _need_ earnings growth. That's why many companies buy back shares or pay dividends instead of always investing retained earnings.
786.
by eru 4mo ago
Well, the article you commented on is that self-reflection.
787.
by eru 4mo ago
> Yeah that’s why health care and credit are so cheap! Yep, though only where competition is allowed! > How about literally anything run by private equity? Like many airlines? Flying has never been cheaper. Planet Fitness is also own
788.
by eru 4mo ago
> Surely with automation, robots and general efficiency gains every where in the production chain they should be lot cheaper than they used to be. And they are! Especially when adjusted for quality and efficiency and how seldom you have
789.
by eru 4mo ago
No worries. > This millennium is also entirely, utterly, absolutely defined by the short-sighted ideas of the economist. I think you give them more credit than is due. (And for all their faults, I don't think you can accuse them of
790.
by eru 4mo ago
It's somewhat funny that the rest of Chomsky's ideology doesn't seem to really take that insight serious.
791.
by eru 4mo ago
Just copy and paste the sentence you admire into your favourite LLM and then ask the question you had?
792.
by eru 4mo ago
Well, I would pay for newspaper that's consistently wrong. I'd just trade the exact opposite of what they say. But I get what you mean!
793.
by eru 4mo ago
The folks at the Economist certainly know. Bunch of nerds! (And I say that in the best sense.)
794.
by eru 4mo ago
> [...] the field from which it draws its name [...] The Economist was founded in 1843 and draws its name from a then-current term for something like a 'free-trade liberal' (with perhaps a fiscal conservative bend). Not the mo
795.
by eru 4mo ago
Obituary first?
796.
by eru 4mo ago
Yes. Though with Excel for most business users the choice was between - lobby the IT department for at least a quarter, then wait at least one quarter, and at the end you get a buggy implementation of your idea that doesn't quite work
797.
by eru 4mo ago
Well, so far any gives level of capability has started with (expensive) frontier models, but everyone else, including the cheaper models, usually quickly catches up and the frontier keeps moving forward. Fable-level capability will most lik
798.
by eru 4mo ago
I agree, but good computers are so comparatively cheap and engineers so expensive that this logic applies to (nearly?) every one of your engineers, not just the most expensive ones.
799.
by eru 4mo ago
Eh, computers are so (comparatively) cheap, that you can give all your employees top-of-the-line equipment by that logic. (Well, for this to make sense, you need good computers to be cheap, but the returns to diminish quickly after that. W
800.
by eru 4mo ago
They can, and they have been doing so. But humans are expensive. Especially smart humans.
801.
by eru 4mo ago
I don't think there's any bubble to pop. However, yes, market asset prices can go up as well as down. (If they could only go up, there would be free money to be made.)
802.
by eru 4mo ago
Obviously they don't voluntarily pass on cost savings to customers. That's why competition is there for. Btw, check how much RAM costs today per byte than eg 20 years ago. Even including today's AI driven price increases.
803.
by eru 4mo ago
Barriers to entry ain't exactly high.
804.
by eru 4mo ago
What does corporate culture have to do with any of it? The surplus goes to the consumer not because of any benevolent corporate culture, but because of competition. And (most) efficiency gains have benefited customers in the past. Just che
805.
by eru 4mo ago
With enough competition, the surplus will go to consumers (and workers).
806.
by eru 4mo ago
> If AI eats profits instead of grows them, then the economy shrinks right? No, why? The economy is bigger than company profits. Eg there's workers' wages and customer surplus and investments etc.
807.
by eru 4mo ago
Very similar to how cloud providers love renting servers to you to run your bank or software business; instead of running these businesses themselves.
808.
by eru 4mo ago
> [...] but nobody will invest dollars backing a SaaS offering that could easily be replicated, or that could be made redundant tomorrow. Matt Levine wrote in his newsletter Money Stuff of some investment fund that has their employees vi
809.
by eru 4mo ago
> But it's also unlikely that growing companies with big ambitions will want to base their business on vibe-coded free software for too long. It opens up too many unknowns/risks ("oh no, the disgruntled employee leveraged
810.
by eru 4mo ago
The closest parallel in history I can think of is the proliferation of spreadsheets in the 1980s.

More ›