Don't worry, open source AI will win. There's a reason everybody is desperate to IPO fast and get an exit, their competitive advantage is not lasting long.

Linux killed proprietary UNIX; open source models will kill proprietary AI.

> To be fair, raising money takes connections, that few people possess; and in many cases, it’s essential for a startup to even exist.

FTFY

>> To be fair, building connections takes skill, that few people possess; and in many cases, it’s essential for a startup to even exist.

FTFY

I don't believe it's really that, but the fact that Apple 1) is profitable 2) holds a lot of cash, and 3) has a proven capability to execute new products.

So by not attempting to enter market niches, they could be potentially leaving a lot of money on the table, while the downside of the product failing to get traction doesn't really kill them.

I guess a foldable phone that unfolds to be that large kind of competes/kills the market for iPad, so this kind of user probably expects to store the device in a bag instead of pocket, and use bluetooth / smartwatch / siri to interact hands free instead of pulling the phone out all the time.

The iPad lineup has forked into two classes that seem to be drifting in the direction of “alternative laptop” or “portable television” respectively. A big folding phone would maybe eat into that second case somewhat, but I still view it as a distinct specialization. The difference would probably be clearer if they set up iPadOS to be viable as a shared multi-user/family device instead of assuming it must have a single owner.

Such is everything: at first, painstakingly crafted; later, mass produced.

I for one am happy never to have needed to use assembly.

Lovely. These React components are the new spam mail.

The lscpu from Linux doesn't support Macs, and sysctl output format isn't as human readable, so I've created this small utility.

Good job – but the article seems to introduce new lingo ("sync engine"?) to describe a well known pattern: optimistic user interface.

The fact PHP finally has the features of other mature languages is just table stakes I guess?

IMO the article failed articulating what is PHP's unique selling point.

The argument seems to be that they think LLMs made the implementation languages equal or irrelevant, therefore PHP is as good as any of them now. The flip side of this argument is that PHP is not any more compelling than it was before, it's just adequate now that so many deficiencies have been addressed.