That doesn't tell us what percentage they own, though. When you invest in a company and the value goes up, your percentage doesn't change (unless there are additional investors)
I am not sure what you mean by naive. I also didn't say the percentage wouldn't go down, I literally said other investment rounds would change the percentage they own.
Amazons investment in Anthropic was in the form of convertible notes, which they have converted entirely into equity by march of this year. At that time, Anthropic was valued at 61.5 billion and Amazon (in their filings) said their investment was worth 13.8 billion, so about 22% of the company.
Then, there was another round in September where Anthropic raised 13 billion more at a valuation of 183 billion (so the new investors are buying about a 7% stake in the company). Without more details, that would lower amazons percentage to about 20% (old investors hold 93% of the company, so Amazon's 22% of the remaining 93% comes out to about 20%). There are probably other details that lower that percentage a bit, but i think the 15-19% ownership estimate is pretty accurate.
It really isn’t a confused muddle, the rules are very clear. Just because it doesn’t match what you expect from your other language experience doesn’t mean it isn’t clear.
I'm not a Rubyist really, but I started using it at work a few weeks ago for a very small script. I'm not allergic to RTFM, so I picked up the canonical reference book on Ruby and occasionally visit the official docs for the language. I agree: the structure is clear and straightforward and there's nothing difficult about learning it.
It's also the opposite of magic; magic is when language features can't be described in terms of the language itself.
Well, “puts” is a method defined in the Kernel module, which is included in the Object class, which means it is available in all contexts (since every object is a subclass of the ‘Object’ class). So, to answer your question, the puts method belongs to the Kernel module object, and the Kernel module object is an instance of a Module object.
I have often felt a little out of place when I hear how focused on career growth some people are. I was excited to advance the first few years of my career, but it didn’t take long for me to realize I just didn’t have the desire or need to keep trying to climb the career ladder. Once I started making good money working on problems I enjoyed with the level of respect and autonomy I desired, I stopped even thinking about trying to “advance my career”. I would rather do a good job at my current position, and not try to fight for a higher level job I might not even like. What’s the point?
My career goal was always to keep programming, because it was what I enjoyed doing the most. I resisted every single move which would result in doing things other than programming.
It wasn’t a good approach for money making, but at least the primary goal was achieved.
No idea which path would’ve been a better life with all things considered.
I know that you know this isn’t true. You are telling me the only thing keeping a guy in a wheelchair out of the NBA is motivation? As for astronauts, NASA has a height limit of 193cm to be on a flight crew, so no amount of motivation is going to let a 6’6” guy be an astronaut.
These are the easy and obvious counters to your assertion that motivation is all it takes to be anything, but it is even true at most things. We like to believe that hard work is all that is needed to achieve anything you want, but any rigorous thinking and life experience will show this isn’t true. People have different skills and abilities, and some people simply don’t have the skills for certain things no matter how much they work at it.
Lastly, some of these things are simply numbers games. Every profession only has a limited number of opportunities, and some of these most highly desired ones are extremely limited. If there are two people who want to be the head coach of the Los Angeles Lakers, no amount of motivation is going to prevent at least one of them from failing to get the job. Even if both candidates had infinite motivation and infinite skill and infinite experience, only one of them can have the job.
the storyline by which "person under the flight limit becomes astronaut" is something like: they become famous and renowned and respected for some kind of science at which they are an expert; in the next twenty years spaceflight changes tremendously; the rules change; they end up on the shortlist for a flight colonizing Mars because they deserve it and rules are made up anyway.
So "success" looks like "changing the world". Doesn't it mean it can't be done! Just that it's gonna be hard.
not that this disproves your point per se, but, like... saying something can't happen because of rules is silly. Rules change all the time. The NBA example is better. But can a wheelchair-bound person end up professionally-good at basketball? Sure, maybe, in a future where medicine accomplishes a lot and they end up with bionic legs or whatever, plus they're incredibly driven to test those legs on basketball. Why not? The future can be anything.
I don’t think the ability to come up with an implausible scenario where a person could become the thing that seems impossible is the same thing as saying “if you have enough motivation, you can become anything you want”. Both scenarios you described require a lot of things to happen that you are not in control of; space flight changing significantly and colonizing mars aren’t something you can work at.
Also, the height limit isn’t just a made up rule, it is so you can fit in the spaceship.
For the wheelchair basketball player, they can’t just work hard and suddenly the NBA lets people on with bionic legs. That would require a major rule shift, which again is not something you can change through hard work and motivation.
Look, I get why we want to persist the myth that you can accomplish anything though hard work. You CAN accomplish a lot, and probably more than you think, through dedication and hard work, but you definitely can’t if you don’t believe you can. So, we tell ourselves (and others) that you can be anything if you work hard so as to encourage people to try for things they might not try for because they don’t realize they can accomplish the thing if they work hard. It makes some sense to try to delude yourself into thinking you can do anything in order to prevent the situation where you actually could have accomplished the thing you wanted to do, but you didn’t try because you didn’t think you could.
So I get it, but really, if you think it through… there are things out of your control that will factor into whether you can accomplish your goal or not, and you have to be prepared for that, too.
We're kinda talking about different philosophies here. There's "can it be done in any timeline" and "can it be done practically". Of course it can't be done practically. But if that is a 100%-filter on the things you attempt, then things that aren't likely to ever happen will never be attempted. Things go a lot better when people have unrealistic expectations and then end up in places they didn't expect (probably not the place they aimed for...). That's a moral worth nurturing, even if it is not any sort of practical approach that you would stake anything on.
Basically: it is false that you can be anything in particular if you work hard enough. But it is true that the best way to act is as if that were true to some degree, because the outcomes are better for everybody.
It sounds like we are actually in agreement, then. You can absolutely achieve more things than seem possible, but you can’t achieve everything. I don’t think it is a bad idea to try things that seem unlikely to succeed, or to believe you can achieve something that is rationally very unlikely. You are right, having some irrational belief in yourself will often lead to more positive outcomes.
I just think you shouldn’t conclude that you just didn’t work hard enough if you don’t achieve every dream. As Captain Picard put it, “It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness, that is life."
NWBA is a legit basketball league with pro athletes. NASA may limit your astronaut dreams due to height but SpaceX won't.
You state easy and obvious concerns, yet they all are self limiting..
Sure, if you modify your goal to a more realistic version of the goal, you can achieve it. That is different than saying you can achieve any specific goal you want if you work hard enough.
For the first 10 years or so of my career, I didn’t even know my job title. I knew my pay, which is what I cared (and still care) about. They could call me the janitor as long as they paid me a good salary and the work didn’t change.
It wasn’t until one of my startups was bought by a big corp that I came to learn my job title, because suddenly it was tied to compensation. That mattered.
I still find it strange how people use the word “WiFi” to mean internet. For so many young people today, WiFi IS the internet. They have never plugged in an Ethernet cable in their life.
I still get frustrated by WiFi, though, and never use it for my computers unless I had no choice. So many devices these days, the performance is still subpar. Packet loss on the best connections cause so many performance degradations.
> I still find it strange how people use the word “WiFi” to mean internet. For so many young people today, WiFi IS the internet.
I don't think that's the case, people don't call mobile internet "WiFi". In their minds "WiFi" probably means "home internet", so it's more like they call LAN "WiFi", because they have never used cable connection.
I have a friend who, no matter how many times I have explained it, calls her Internet connection WiFi. I was really confused at first when she said she pays for Wi-Fi. She's 27.
And they used to say kids were good with computers. I think if you graph computer illiteracy vs. year of birth, people who were born around the 80's are in the bottom of a bathtub curve.
The boomers are hopeless with tech, because they grew up without it. But gen-z is also hopeless, because they grew up with opaque appliances like Iphones. You use it how Apple allows you to. The inner workings of it are hidden behind endless abstractions and shiny (liquid!) UI. Every error message is something like "Oopsie woopsie" with a sad face emoji. When it breaks you toss it in the garbage.
This reads like an "uphill both ways" story, but we used to build our own computers (still do, but I used to too), because that was how you aquired one unless you bought a Dell like a lamer. When your software messed up it segfaulted or coredumped, and you had to figure it out. When your hardware broke, you took it apart. People today use Discord because picking a client and specifying a server and port combo to connect to is too hard. And so on and so forth, you get the point...
And the point is these damn kids are on my lawn, making TikTok videos.
This also applies to many other things, such as cars. But perhaps the timeline is shifted.
But if we go earlier a bit, it was common for people to know much more about house construction, electric work, flooring, making furniture etc. IKEA emulates some of this, but it's really a different thing to live around things you truly understand, you participated in builting your house, you know how and why everything is in it, you can fix your car, you can make produce in your garden, you eat your chickens' eggs, which you can turn into baked chicken, the whole process from hatching to hen to plate is managed by you etc.
People are having less and less control and understanding of their lives. It's all "coming from somewhere" and wrapped in abstractions and euphemisms. You no longer buy things, just rent, etc. It really changes the mentality to a more child-like thinking, at the mercy of some opaque system. With AI we will get the final blow. No skills, no intellectual muscle, just as people don't even remember the and driving directions to even places they regularly visit, because GPS gives instructions so it's just not memorized. It will be the same but for everything.
It's why I became an electrician, and specialised in telecoms. I realised in my 20's that I didn't want to spend the rest of my life typing on a keyboard, and telecoms is the right kind of combination of geekery and practical work. Plus I know all the fundamental electrician stuff. I highly recommend this career path if you feel the same way. My last job was in robotics where my combined skillset of being a Linux-focused computer+networking geek and having electrical skills made me pretty unique. Lately my career has taken a bizarre turn where I do AV, networking and electrical work, plus... swimming pool maintenance. Life, uh, finds a way.
Anyways, apart from knowing how a car works on a theoretical level, I have no idea how to fix mine, and getting fucked at the dealership is a part of my life I have begrudgingly accepted.
I had similar revelation watching friend’s son asking him stuff about how to use cell phone. When I was young, it was always the other way around. And it still is, I keep helping my parents. But now I wonder if I’ll end up the IT guy in both generational directions.
I think we will, but I’m cringing harder and harder these days because my “clients” (friends and children) are often bringing me problems that are just unsolvable due to all the guardrails put up “for our protection.” For instance, “my iPhone says it’s full”
looks at storage stats
40GB worth of “System Data” and 20GB of Safari “Documents and Data” - zero visibility as to what it is let alone simple controls to get rid of it in a reasonable way. On a real computer, that’s the kind of thing an admin has ultimate authority over. Now, especially on phones, you may as well be a call center tech saying “Well, I guess you can erase the entire phone and don’t restore a backup?” because that’s the only guaranteed fix for most problems.
I think if you're not "on Wifi" then you're "on data" (or perhaps "on 5G" if it's a social status thing). If one were to connect via Starlink then it would still be correct to say you were on Wifi I think but if you could hook up ethernet directly... I think most of us would say you're now "on satellite"?
I didn't even consider that the newest iPhones can connect to satellites directly.
Yeah, that’s true. I even thought about that when I was typing my comment but wasn’t sure the best way to articulate the difference, but I think you are right with it being about home internet vs cellular.
Although I really think it is just used to mean “non-phone based internet”, rather than just home internet.
Haha, yeah right. American ISPs got jealous of Australian ones I guess, because most have caps now. With my gigabit connection I have a 1.25TB cap, so I can technically burn the whole month allowance in 2.77 hours. Yay “broadband”!
Ok, in my world that's not a thing. Mobile data is for most people at most a few or few 10s of gigabytes, so they need to pay attention not to watch many HD videos and download big stuff. On wifi it doesn't matter. The biggest reason for people to switch to wifi in a Cafe etc is the data cap.
I don’t think people realize tha Wi-Fi is a brand name for 'IEEE 802.11b Direct Sequence'." WiFi, Wifi, or wifi, are not approved by the Wi-Fi Alliance. Despite common belief the name Wi-Fi is not short-form for 'Wireless Fidelity'.
Your comment seems much more in the vain "I already learned how to do it this way, and I would have to learn something to do it the other way"
Which is of course true, but it is true for all things. Provisioning a cluster in AWS takes a bit of research and learning, but so did learning how to set it up locally. I think most people who know how to do both will agree it is simpler to learn how to use the AWS version than learning how to self host it.
