bwy

I think you're wrong, in the same way that folks on HN were wrong about Dropbox–HN: why would I pay for something that provides so little value, it's just slightly more convenient file storage?

Just because open source models are almost as good, doesn't mean you can underestimate the convenience factor.

Both can be true: we're in an AI bubble, and the large incumbents will capture most of the value/be difficult to unseat.

Lindy effect?

If something is built to last 10 years, it makes it likelier that it can survive another 10.

I wonder how many of those "sour grapes" commenters have actually read the thing–my guess, not many.

Then on the first page of the "silly little book," where I already have the question: "why should I read this? Why would an employee spend time reading this?" Immediately he addresses that: "if you read this book and pass a quiz I’ll give you $1,000." And if you've seen MrBeast videos, it's not inconceivable that everyone who's read the manual has actually received $1,000.

Corporate leaders would do well to learn from just this. What are you saying in the all-hands meeting that takes 1,000 SWE-hours that's actually worth that much? What value does your employee handbook/documentation provide (in my experience, a lot of documentation provides negative value by virtue of being so out-of-date, confusing, or just wrong).

Jimmy has probably done the math (in a intuitive sense; I don't think he has strong math skills), and it's worth the employee-hours for him to pay them $1,000 to read this PDF to avoid having them waste time or make mistakes they've already made. It's probably worth a lot more than $1,000.

The Tesla playbook?

You've articulated the exact sentiment that I have to others before.

What can we do about it? Is trying to out-lobby i.e. regulate the CC companies the only way? I noticed that other countries don't seem to have this problem.

From my anecdotal experience with a few Googlers: many will micro-optimize expenses this small. I think (hope) they enjoy it.

They spent 2 years at the senior level at one FAANG. Why would they switch to another for anything less than the staff (senior + 1) level?

(Not saying anyone "deserves" that or that's how it should be, but that's just how it is here in the valley.)

Just curious if you would post a little more of the screenshot? I don't think there's enough in the image for me to tell if it's from a spam address or not.

This project on a quick glance reminds me of the teamlab Borderless Museum in Japan. Interactive shapes, colors, and lines on real materials.

I agree with you that the review seems to have misunderstood the author on this point. I wrote a comment on the blog to explain more. I think the review mixes up the words abstraction and specification, especially once I dug a little bit into the correspondence on the draft he posted for the book author's feedback.