Which is also why I don't think motorcycle helmet optionality makes sense from a "freedom" point of view either:
1. If your melon hits the ground and splatters open, there's going to a crash scene investigation that closes down the road for many hours, causing traffic chaos. As opposed to a helmet protecting you, where you're more likely to survive, and hobble off the road and get of the way of traffic.
2. Insurance companies generally do not have policies that offer helmet-optional and helmet-mandatory options, so if a motorcyclist who does not wear a helmet gets into a crash and needs a payout (life, or medical treatment), then those riders who do wear a helmet (which tend to have less severe injuries, and thus smaller payouts) have larger premiums through no fault of their own. At the very least there need two different types of policies.
> These are heading in the direction of being powerful cybersecurity weapons and it will be in the interest of nation states to restrict and control them. In 2 years time, I would be surprised if the strongest LLMs are available for general use at all.
I don't necessarily disagree, but who is going to pay for improvements in models if they're not commercially available? Are AI companies going to become defence contractors with (US?) government paying for the training?
I don't know much it cost to go from AI model Foo 4 to Foo 5, but it's going to cost a pretty penny to eventually go to 6 and 7. These companies are doing so in the expectation of eventually charging customers to recoup the costs: if the only customer(s) is government(s) then the per-unit cost will be much higher. An analogy: you can get a 'civilian' toilet for USD 200, an FAA/EASA-approved toilet for airlines 2000, and a MILSPEC/NASA toilet for 20000.
Now this limited-customer model is certainly doable—tank manufacturers have a smaller base of customers than pickup truck manufacturers—but AI companies probably want regulatory clarity on what they're allowed to sell, and to whom, before they start developing new products/services.
I assume (and this is a big assumption) that the US government will be focused on limiting access to the latest model, not necessarily everything smarter than Fable 5. Having access to the frontier model from a year ago (Sonnet 4.7-ish) wouldn't really help you from a cybersecurity perspective.
I think there's a world where the US funds development of the next model in exchange for exclusivity, at which point they could "release" the previous version from that exclusivity.
> Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same mathematically. But oh boy will people get instantly riled up emotionally :).
Price and value are not the same. The logic of your friend was basically putting a price on how "special" (or not) he saw your relationship versus some rando-buyer online.
That is why people (close to you) get riled up emotionally: they're being treated in a way no different than a complete stranger.
If you ask your friend for $100 for no particular reason, just because you want $100, that's an annoying request and "no" is a reasonable response. It's not putting a price on your relationship. It's technically the same answer they'd give a stranger, but that doesn't mean you're being treated like a stranger.
(I do think a slight discount often makes sense just because a friend is probably quicker and easier to deal with. But anything more substantial turns into asking for free stuff, and yes and no are both perfectly fine answers to that.)
> If you ask your friend for $100 for no particular reason, just because you want $100, that's an annoying request and "no" is a reasonable response.
If a stranger walks up to you and asks for $100, you're unlikely to give it to him. If a friend does, there's a more likely probability that you will consider the request.
And depending on the relationship, you may expect for the money to be paid back (eventually), or you may not (considering it a gift). (Often the advice is to consider "loans" to family and friends as gifts in practice, as otherwise the expectation of repayment may sour the relationship.)
Sure you'll consider it. The point is you could say yes or no without being a bad friend if their reason for the money is "friendship I guess? *shrug*".
I don't know why so many people are acting like I said a "no" is the only acceptable answer.
That's the thing. This was a $3000 camera. A 20% friends discount is 600. We've been best friends for two decades, but most days he doesn't give me $600 on cash. Don't get me wrong, we don't keep track who paid for dinner or cinema ticket or whatever. But there IS a threshold at which it really becomes a random cash gift.
Yes dealing with friends is nicer than strangers - but also when you're selling stuff, sometimes it's better to do strangers. Expectations of long term service and support are clearer and have more defined boundaries.
> But there IS a threshold at which it really becomes a random cash gift.
Not wrong, but it is also possible that the $600 'cash equivalent' discount would be considered a birthday or Christmas present, or a form of 'repayment' for the time he helped you out with the Thing with the Guy in the Place. (“I'd never been to Belize.”)
I guess friendship means different things to different people. I've had friends spot me plenty more than $600 and I've spent thousands on friends in return. I can't imagine having such an indifferent attitude towards someone I care about.
It can imply that, but it can imply other things too and you shouldn't draw conclusions from one interpretation. You've never just paid for a friend's dinner or ticket?
Perhaps this is a cultural thing. I routinely buy gifts for friends, pay for their meals, travel and vice versa. Having more money is not some supreme objective that is more important than the people around you. Money is just a tool for enjoying life. I come from an impoverished and deprived background, spent years homeless since I was a teenager, and I still recognize that putting money before friends is a scarcity mindset.
"deciding not to give someone a gift out of absolutely nowhere" as a matter of course, as a guiding philosophical principle, is categorically putting money before friends.
I'd say I'm reading into them the regular amount. Your entire premise is that you wouldn't just hand money to a friend for no reason. I challenged this mentality and whether or not such a friendship is ideal, offering a perspective into why there are more important things in life than money.
If this isn't your intent, you should reflect on how you've presented your argument.
To be clear, I don't think either of them is putting money above friendship.
But you haven't explained why you think sometimes saying no is a problem. You said a thing about philosophical principles but I've explicitly told you that's not what I meant. So it's hard for me to make this comparison without knowing what you mean.
Obviously sometimes saying no is a problem. But, the user I responded to, and you to a degree, seemed to, intentionally or not, use this "sometimes" as a lever for "anytime". To be clear, my original criticism is meant for NikolaNovak and his friend's unwillingness to sell something to him at a slight discount. They initially say "slightly less" but later say "20%", I'm unsure which is the real number, obviously the perceived value of a high percentage discount does not scale as linearly.
You replied, saying "Declining to give you $600 out of the blue because you'd rather have more money is not being indifferent," and so I responded to this and your earlier comment, "If you ask your friend for $100 for no particular reason, just because you want $100, that's an annoying request and "no" is a reasonable response," because I disagree with it as framed.
Since then, you have widened that argument to give it more support, and we can now both certainly agree that there's nothing wrong with saying no to a request for money/gifts from a friend. And we can agree it would be annoying for a friend to constantly ask that, or even to ask a single time in certain contexts without sufficient social capital.
I understand your intended meaning might be different than how it came across to me, and said, "If this isn't your intent, you should reflect on how you've presented your argument."
I mean no ill intent and don't want this to devolve into an actual argument, so it's probably best we wind it down. If I came across as judgemental, I apologize, for my part I was attempting to offer a more generous perspective on what friendship can mean to different people.
Once it no longer is being drafted—and agreed upon by all parties to meet the needed regulatory standards—it will become final and be publicly published.
> This is the 2026 edition of Ken Olsen: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home"
Digging into this:
> In conclusion, there is evidence that Ken Olsen did doubt the need for computers in the home, but the evidence is based primarily on the testimony of David Ahl who was perturbed when the personal computer project he championed at DEC was not supported by Olsen in 1974.
> Olsen’s resistance may have been similar to that expressed by another DEC executive, Gordon Bell. In 1980 Bell thought home terminals would act as gateways to remote computers which would provide appropriate services.
It was supposedly said in 1977: most computers at that time were not small, and so it would not be surprising that people would not expect the general public to desire a large, power-hungry, noise-y apparatus in their house.
This is why I'm bearish on Anthropic, OpenAI, and friends. I am not confident that we will continue to see the same pace of improvement in frontier model capabilities as we have seen over the past year or two - not using similar mathematics at least. But I think that getting results that are close enough to the same standard to be a realistic substitute but in a model small enough to run locally may well happen quite quickly. And if it does - where is the moat to defend these AI organisations with their astronomical budgets when they're already starting to price more realistically and that's already killing a lot of the hype they've enjoyed until very recently? They have an accidental moat because they bought up the global supply chain for storage but that surely isn't going to last once the data centres to hold that storage are becoming liabilities.
If model performance asymptotes and CPU/GPU and RAM keep growing, even slowly, then eventually we will have frontier models on desktop that are totally competitive with hosted. It’s only a matter of time.
You already can if you’re willing to spend many thousands of dollars on a beast of a machine. I’m talking about middle tier desktops and laptops here. Maybe eventually even phones.
The only way hosted stays strongly competitive in that world is if they can keep pushing the frontier or by playing the classic social media and SaaS games of network effect building and integrations.
Many people might still use hosted, of course, but what I really mean is that their multiples won’t be justified and they will have little to no moat. AI will become commoditized, like a sophisticated next generation form of an encyclopedia with search.
> This is why I'm bearish on Anthropic, OpenAI, and friends.
Just because you can do more and more things at home (thanks Moore and Dennard), doesn't preclude needing things also done remotely. The number of at-home systems seems to have fed a growing number of remote systems (especially once always-on connectivity became ubiquitous).
It's basically the angle Apple is going for: do as much locally (for the sake of privacy), and then offload when it becomes "too much".
I agree that one doesn't preclude the other. But the sky high valuations we've been seeing for the AI industry recently can only be justified if they bring about a fundamental change in our society and those companies continue to bring in the lion's share of the resulting profits. I don't see why everyone else in our society - particularly other large businesses with lots of money to invest - is going to play a game by the AI companies' rules once they can take their ball and go home and still have most of the fun without paying much for it by comparison.
We kinda ended up with terminals connected to mainframes anyway. The terminal being the web browser, and the mainframe being SaS. So it wasn't that far off.
People take these quotes out of context all the time. Said in a business context, there was no need, at that time, for someone to have a personal computer.
There's no business justification in 1977 for a personal computer department at a business. It's similar to the gates quote about RAM (I think it was 64KB?).
These statements aren't meant to be forever quotes. Their business plan quotes.
That exact quote? No, never.
He said something like: current computers at the time had 64kb of RAM, so the OS was designed with a limit of 640kb, and he believed this would give them 10 years of future proofing. As it happened, that limit was reached much faster, in about 6 years.
He had a long career and presumably many successes, and is fallible like the rest of us. But a half-remembered zinger with no context makes for zippier posts I guess.
The early popularity of Minitel, the continued popularity of ssh/tmux, and the web browser itself indicates that bespoke client applications are not the only way. He wasn’t directionally wrong.
> The greatest tech revolution by far and people on this site are trying to movie their money away from it. I hope y'all will do an honest retrospective in a year or so.
It does not necessarily follow that it being a technological revolution also means that it is a good investment—at least, perhaps, at this point in time. Railroads were a tech revolution, but a lot of them—and their investors—went bankrupt once the hype subsided and the overbuilding stopped. Once consolidation happened after their crash then railroads became a stable investment.
There are numerous examples of this in history, starting with (at least) canals; see Perez:
> But I bet even my dad’s village in Bangladesh could afford to put a few cheap Chinese mini splits in the school building and other gathering places. They are extremely efficient in the heat and wouldn’t cause a huge strain on the grid.
Mini-splits have a maximum operating temperature in the 47-50˚C range.
The headline in this article seems to indicate some places have hit that limit, and so the external units (compressors) may not be able push the heat out of the refrigerant any longer.
> except in ipv4 getting a link-local address means "I fucked up DHCP" […]
No, it means "there is no infrastructure on this link segment". No router (to send out IPv6 RAs), and (as you say) no (working) DHCP server.
Still being able to have network connectivity automatically in this scenario can still be handy. If mDNS is running on things, then the user doesn't even have to bother manually setting an address: the link light comes on and you have connectivity to the local segment.
> Flexing the ability to jam GPS is pointless, since it's obvious that any state actor who has military satellites in orbit has considered this option or have the capability already.
Forget "state actors", truck drivers have taken out entire airports with GPS jammers:
The US still has a fairly robust network of VOR's / VOR with DME / VORTAC stations. Good for navigation, but there's no timing component, beyond what's inherent in how they operate.
Admittedly, that'll never be of use outside aviation as its line-of-sight only. But if the sun threw a Carrington event (or worse) at us, I think a lot of western aviation could carry on.
> The US still has a fairly robust network of VOR's / VOR with DME / VORTAC stations. Good for navigation, but there's no timing component, beyond what's inherent in how they operate. Admittedly, that'll never be of use outside aviation […]
I'm aware of the FAA's MON, Minimum Operating Network.
Exactly: that doesn't help boats. Or people in cars. Or farmers:
1. If your melon hits the ground and splatters open, there's going to a crash scene investigation that closes down the road for many hours, causing traffic chaos. As opposed to a helmet protecting you, where you're more likely to survive, and hobble off the road and get of the way of traffic.
2. Insurance companies generally do not have policies that offer helmet-optional and helmet-mandatory options, so if a motorcyclist who does not wear a helmet gets into a crash and needs a payout (life, or medical treatment), then those riders who do wear a helmet (which tend to have less severe injuries, and thus smaller payouts) have larger premiums through no fault of their own. At the very least there need two different types of policies.
reply