If an anonymous comment[0] is to be believed, the adapter runs XNU (the macOS kernel) on an ARM SOC with 2GB of RAM. The OS for the adapter is pushed down when the device connects.
This is a dumb title for a good article. In that it makes is seem like he is talking about OSS software. The software that powers the entire Silicon Valley tech empire. Linux and OSS power Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc, right down to your 1-2 person startups.
He's not talking about that -- he's talking about open source software sales model used by companies like Redhat and HashiCorp. The threat here is that you're developing in the open, trying to up-sell enterprise features, professional services, and support. Then you have XYZ startup appear, they take your open-source code, repackages it and then sells enterprise features, professional services, and support. They basically leech off your OSS code and community, provide nothing back, and actively compete with you. It's brutal.
> Then you have XYZ startup appears, they takes your open-source code, repackages it and then sells enterprise features, professional services, and support.
That is a feature of the model, not a bug.
Exactly that happened to Git. Good. Happening at last in social media with Mastodon
The point is to have a lot of smaller companies rather than one or two huge companies playing "lock in"
what a bizarre claim. Git was written by Linus because Larry McVoy kicked him off BitKeeper, and then the biggest Git ecosystem software spinoffs (GitHub) are entirely closed source.
They also benefited from a large ecosystem of third party contributors, whom were not (at least, visibly?) considered as stakeholders when Hashicorp implemented this license change.
I'm pretty sure no-one contributing to a product's ecosystem likes it when the previous agreements related to IP underpinning the ecosystem is rugpulled out from under them.
Reality is it is sort of mixed. For the OSS company actually building the product, you end up playing whack-a-mole in that anyone can spin up a competitor over the weekend. Look at what happened with Docker. They completely changed the landscape of running code locally and in production and was run out of town. Everyone and their dog took the code and re-packaged it and competed with Docker. Then compare that with VMware, they completely changed the landscape of running code locally and in production but they were able to protect that value and thrive as a company. There is definitely a lesson in there.
Sure, maybe this is a feature but if you're about to launch an open source sales model company you probably need to think really hard about that idea.
The result is that the industry got better container run times because they had to compete with each other. Competition is a good thing - it gives us better products and services at lower prices.
And Docker still had the ecosystem, which they could have dug a deeper moat around. But they didn't, and they failed.
And not for nothing, VMWare has a significantly deeper technological moat than Docker. Containers are not hard to implement, virtualization is.
Their virtualization tools are niche, being squeezed by whatever the cloud provider offers for "free" on one side, and KVM (and platform-native hypervisors) on the other. You rarely hear them mentioned.
OTOH, if they licensed their software under the AGPL, Amazon would not be able to offer it as a service without opening their secret sauce, whatever it is.
Excellent article; thank you for sharing. It dates back to 2005, and the following caught my eye:
> PR people fear bloggers for the same reason readers like them. And that means there may be a struggle ahead. As this new kind of writing draws readers away from traditional media, we should be prepared for whatever PR mutates into to compensate.
Alas, the days of "bloggers are more authentic than the print media" are long gone. The PR people are now everywhere: blogs, social media, messaging apps, movies, OTT series etc. The "crap" pervades all media, not just print. The PR has indeed mutated as predicted.
Basically, the general guidance in this post now applies to _anything_ you read.
It’s quite sad to read him talk in 2005 about how online content was so authentic and not PR spam :/
I wonder if there will be another new type of media technology that will go through this same evolution, or if “authentic” content will gather somewhere else.
I think this is partially why things like discord and in general semi-private circles are very popular. Here on HN discord is often criticized cause it's inherently a closed platform but that also makes it less accessible for content enshittificators.
Get a second remote job. You could effectively double your salary for a few months or as long as you can handle it. Personally, this is much better than the race of the bottom of all these piece meal contracting gig sites. Youtube is likely a major waste of time in that you'd need to compete and build a profile, etc. This takes time. If you want to spend years then you might make it work. I've done this and know from experience. It's well worth it if you have years to put into it. It'll open tons of doors too.
However, you know how to hold a job. You've had one for 11+ years. So, just get a second one. You could be making double your current salary within as little as 4-6 weeks after interviews etc. That's likely the fastest path if you need money quickly.
NB: certain aspects of holding 2+ FT jobs are harder to parse out before being hired - particularly meeting times. It's not typical to ask what time morning standups are in an interview, but juggling overlapping meetings is one of the main difficulties of holding down multiple roles, so just be aware of what you're getting into.
This would require that at least one of the jobs basically have no meetings, and also that you can automate the sht out of one of them (and not to tell it to your boss).
I can't see it working in any other way. I've heard about this before, but I think you need a huge amount of luck to make this work.
Edit: I mean yeah, if you are willing to work 14-16 hours you can make it work, by landing the jobs in different time zones.
I knew a Sales guy who made the dual-job arrangement work. One job was high commission, low salary; the other job was low commission, high salary. He busted his ass at the high-commission job and earned his high commission, and just did nothing at the high-salary job and got fired after ~6 weeks, then just picked up another one, got fired in ~6 weeks, etc.
This is purely anecdotal, but I had to complete Conflict of Interest administration for concurrent outside employment while serving as an officer in the military full-time. Basically-- follow internal policy governing this, to cover your backside.
No it's not. Everyone has obligations. You cannot un-invent this stuff. That's like trying to stop air planes, rockets, photography, combustion engine, calculators, the personal pc, etc. It's the next phase of technology and it will be developed regardless if you like it or not. It's here to stay and thinking otherwise does everyone a disservice. We should be trying to figure out how to leverage this and ride the next wave.
Honestly, this might even make support much easier to interact with. If you can filter this stuff you could probably have a much better support experience. ChatGPT has proved this to be true. I cannot tell you how many times I've used support and the person is some entry level tech who has no idea.
> many times I've used support and the person is some entry level tech who has no idea.
Yes, roughly all the times. every single time. As far as I can tell, most “first line of support” reps are empowered to read you FAQs, and to maybe perform actions you are better able to do yourself online. If like me, the caller is only calling as a last resort after figuring out the task is impossible online, they just repeat a FAQ or tell them misleading garbage information, blame a third party, or transfer them in circles.
Oddly, the “social media support” reps that cell phone companies have that you can message on Messenger or Twitter DMs are 10x as competent as the phone people, with the bonus that you can work through the problem asynchronously, which is a godsend for busy people.
Yeah, every now and then I directly get an L2 person who either just had a phone queue open or really needs a promotion. But, unless I've just been an idiot (which does happen), L1 is mostly useless.
I've found social media a mix. There are people who seem really interested in making stuff happen and there are people who are surprised you expect anything more than sympathetic cooing noises.
Have you been using ChatGPT to solve work problems? I have. It's amazing. This technology can do amazing things and companies should be using it to solve problems. Of course I think it can improve things. Think about what happens when companies start to build corporate LLM's trained on their docs, code, knowledge base, support tickets, etc. You're going to have super human support. Sure, this might assist the current staff but they are going to be so much better equipped to solve problems.
Imagine for a second, that there is actually a LLM agent that can not only understand what you want but actually do things too. Like, why not have these systems reset passwords, check on the status of a refund, update a mailing address, change billing info, cancel your account, email me some documents, etc. This frees up people to actually work on more important things. The hardest part of all this pre-ChatGPT was understanding fully what the person wanted. That's petty much solved now.
I think we're headed to a future where you'll actually want an LLM agent vs a human in that they will know everything and can solve your issue in seconds. It's like when you win the lottery and get the support person who's been at the company 15 years and knows everything in and out. That's what these LLM's can be.
What do you mean by “work problems”. Writing regex? SQL? Exclusively software development?
Outside of this, even using for “summarizing” documents, you are lucky if it doesn’t distort or twist meanings such that it isn’t useful, except now you have spent as much or more time checking it’s work than just doing it yourself. Checking others’ work is much harder than writing it.
Every time I’ve attempted to ask it something I can’t answer myself or through immediate googling it has been completely useless.
I’m unconvinced that it isn’t just developers with a poor eye for nuance who aren’t realising how much information they are giving in the questions who rave about it. Horses can count, if you give enough context.
It seems to be generally good at novelty style transfers.
> It's like when you win the lottery and get the support person who's been at the company 15 years and knows everything in and out. That's what these LLM's can be.
This is pure fantasy, extrapolating what you want to see into an arbitrary future where it’s true. More likely it gaslights the customer onto thinking problems are their fault until they give up, but this scenario is mildly cheaper for the companies who don’t need to pay humans to do the runaround.
I recently gave a code review to a colleague where the regex they had was obviously unfit for its purpose and I politely informed them of such. They responded "Then why would ChatGPT have told me to use it?"
I trust exactly 0 output from any LLM. The problem with any of this sort of generative AI is that there's nothing that stops it from hallucinating facts and spewing those with a confident tone. Until we can figure out the trust and validation step, none of it is truly helpful.
I'm not a luddite, I just find these tools to be woefully lacking. Anything they can do takes me more time to validate than just doing it myself.
Massively if the companies are willing to let AI actually help. If the companies are just trying to delay you from unsubscribing by using lame tactics then no, but nothing fixes those companies.
Massive upside for some things, neutral for other things. That's net positive.
A 12.5% reduction. Also, they are way larger than I thought with 8k employees. I don't know what's involved with running an exchange but they must be into lots of things with that many folks.
There are dozens of protocols they need to integrate with and keep up to date. Plus, those protocols change constantly. And there are also new ones, and those which disappear... And then, there is their whole infrastructure.
The support must be massive too. And the legal aspect must also keep people busy from having to enforce various regulations to having to answer to various governments...
So let's take a comparison:
- facebook: 50k employee. What has changed on Facebook for the last few years? So yes, there is probably some support, the content enforcement of course must keep a lot of people busy, but then?..
- snapchat: 5k employee. Well, for a social media platform which is not changing at all and actually losing in revenue, that's a big number
You're assuming (in both the Binance and Facebook cases) that the majority of headcount comes from product development teams. Not true. The majority of that 8k/50k figure comes from areas like sales, compliance, finance, HR and management.
That figure seems implausibly high. 1 in 80 humans on Earth are not only participating in crypto but specifically have an account on Binance? It certainly cannot be the number of active users.
If its indeed true, the gap between onchain and offchain users is even more immense.
On chain, there are not more than 100k users across chains daily. Real users across all EVM chains is probably around 20k/day. Major airdrops like Optimism and Arbitrum went out to like 600k wallets (and most have multiple wallets). OpenSea has like a few thousand daily active users.
Which makes you wonder - all these billions in funding for serving just…100k real users? Because if its not onchain, it might as well be a database.
I don't know if I'm just naive, but I'm always confused when I see such a high headcount for companies with such simple tech, the staff of Twitter (even after mass layoffs) confuses me also.
I feel like these companies are solving a relatively simple problem, and a single skilled engineer working full time could probably make and maintain a decent scalable solution.
Twitter is a weird example. The next Twitter has to be at least as good as Twitter without the growing pains. The initial product didn't scale well and probably was written quickly by very few people.
True sign of the arrogant software engineer, believing they can single-handedly recreate an entire company just because they went to school in one subject for 4 years.
I work at one such company and I still think most of us aren't needed. I swear it's 90% red tape and BS holding everyone back. I know I can build things 30x faster outside of work, but I will also confess that it might not meet at the accessibility guidelines and i18n and be user tested and so forth.
every profession does this. Have you ever spoken to marketers about how important marketing is? or accountants? most people have a massively outsized idea of their own role to the point they wonder what other people even do.
The only difference with engineers is they can believe at least in theory they could create the backbone of some services, so they could have a shoddy mvp made in a few days which they assume just needs a "little" work to top it off, whereas others can't start without tech help, but massively underestimate how much tech work is required for their ideas.
If you dont believe me, hang around a startup space and see how people talk about trying to find technical cofounders
