Izmaki

The weights are open, meaning publicly accessible, but you can't have a business profit off of them without paying for a license. That sounds fair and accurate.

HashiCorp has the same business model for their products: you are free to use them even in a business, except if your business is a competitor of their own cloud solutions.

You probably know this already but keep in mind that the "20x" only applies to the 5-hour window, not your weekly maximum. The weekly maximum is increased but not as significantly as the sales pitch wants you (us*) to believe.

The full spec is significantly more expensive in my local currency (Denmark, DKK) than in USD. Something like $7500 even after sales tax of 25% is added.

What gives?

This has to be the cheapest way to obtain a working POC. Lol!

I think that is an interesting observation. You're comparing the "why" we have a language vs. the "how" the language is structured, and for sure the former is more important than the latter.

A side effect of studying programming languages in my youth was that I began understanding grammar better. Suddenly words belonged to "classes" and when thinking about "object references" in sentences, and the rules that followed, it helped me read and write more clearly.

I think I might be slightly opposite of you, but not very far opposite. I prefer reading a precise and accurate sentence that - when understood - clearly describes the intent without a shred of doubt much more than an easy to understand sentence that I find ambiguous because, to understand it, it requires context and a social agreement that nobody is trying to trick people.

I had a friend once that kept using open-ended phrasings and ambiguous descriptions because (I think) he enjoyed the feeling of power or control that the confusion and miscommunication introduced. Like if he were to "run to the stores" you could ask what he was buying and he'd follow up with a "oh, I didn't say I was buying anything, I'm just going for a run". If I have to guess which of the variations of meanings is the intended one, then the communication has failed in my book, regardless of how easy it was to understand the sentence.

So, again, are we aiming for high correctness or high comprehension? "Company" makes sense because you can have a "company of five participants" and they can do something, e.g., select a wine pairing menu at a restaurant, but a corporation is typically "a thing".

Everyone who understands English at a professional level (and probably even lower levels, too - or perhaps especially those) will understand what you mean if you say "the corporation announced their financial report last weekend", but it won't be the correct use of "their", as far as I'm aware.

Similarly you can't, as far as I understand, append an "s" to describe a relationship of an inanimate thing, e.g., this would be incorrect: "the corporations employees went to the summer party" again because "corporation" is a thing. But on the flipside phrases like "the employees of the corporation went to..." sound a bit too - what's the word - posh?

In my mother tongue "baseline system state transition latency validation" would have grammatically been one word. I sometimes miss that in English. If you're tired and see "baseline system state transition*s* latency validation", note the hallucinated "s", the meaning changes and you need to read it again because you're unsure if you actually did see an "s" or if it's "one thing".

"Baselinesystemstatetransitionlatencyvalidation" is surprisingly enough less confusing to me because I know it's one word describing one thing, and my eyes registers each joined word with (years of) training, even though what my eyes look at might be the following chunks in order:

1) [ Baseline ] systemstatetransitionlatencyvalidation

2) Baseline [ systemsta ] tetransitionlatencyvalidation

3) Baselinesystems [ tatetransitio ] nlatencyvalidation

4) Baselinesystemstatetransiti [ onlatency ] validation

5) Baselinesystemstatetransitionlaten [ cyvalidation ]

My eyes essentially scan the word, and although it might be a tad bid slower than reading "baseline system state transition latency validation", reading and understanding is faster because I already know it's one thing before I know which thing it is.

Edit: The example would be easier to demonstrate if HN supported bold font, but I don't think it does (or know how).

"You're absolutely right, and I should have known better than to elaborate at great lengths when unnecessary."

(Sorry. I blame Claude.)

I learned in school (English is my 2nd language) that you can never use "their" or "they" about something inanimate like a corporation (or a chair, for example). You would use "its" or have to rephrase your sentence; "the developers at Google shipped their feature."

The suggestions are valid and correct, we (generic "we") are just used to not following proper grammar. This is how languages evolve but it is also what puts these assistance tools in a peculiar spot, because they help with accuracy, not everyday expressions.

You can definitely get far with skills and personal instructions. That is my estimate, not research.

(*defeated chuckles and gazes towards my Claude session*)

Listening to it auto-play "Ode to Joy" with a full band was more amusing than I thought. Lol!

Deloitte employees, former as well as current, are not allowed to share details about hiring process, management structure or compensation schemes. Enjoy.

*cringes in multiple ways*

I'm sure the seniors had a blast producing that material. "...and then I told them - get this (*wheezes between laughs*) - we have to be honest ! Hah!"