futuraperdita

Anyone that's been in the Amazon offices in the last few years is not likely to have witnessed a culture that fosters lab-grade innovation.

I had to sell my EV and go back to ICE for the same reason: my new apartment didn't have EV charging, and non-Tesla DC fast-chargers in my area (Seattle/Tacoma) were unreliable as someone would come along every few weeks and cut off the charging cables for the copper, and it would then take more weeks for them to be repaired. The infrastructure was simply too unstable, but it did only cost me $300 in electricity for the entire year previously that I owned it.

Agree with this. Regardless of the politics involved, this exchange seems pretty mundane in the grand scheme of corporate emails. Taking Bosworth at face value here, it sounds like both camps got the same advice, one acted on it in full, the other didn't, the party that did saw better results, and on top of that had a better ads/targeting strategy that maximized platform ROI. If we removed the political parties from this and made them two companies, I'm not sure HN would have much of an issue with its content.

> we believe the world would benefit if the industry adopted a lawful, verifiable, effective mechanism for coordinated pacing as soon as possible.

So, a cartel? After watching Ant's narratives, I'm not inclined to provide them with charitable readings under the guise of safety and alignment.

That happened in 1957, but we can’t leave well enough alone.

This is an expensive design object that just happens to contain a laptop.

Many of the decisions Mozilla has made throughout the past decade have felt more like it’s a resting place for a professional-managerial class, post-capital set of leadership who want to perform tech-goodness from within the same playbook as a big tech company. It’s somehow rudderless and declining, but has plenty of time and connections to chase old-boys-club vanity projects like this. Next up they’ll be next to CrowdStrike on a Formula 1 car.

I’m not saying non-profits should necessarily give off the opposite vibe of being derelict and desperate, but even startups choose to run austerity measures when in decline.

For me, Opus 4.8's thinking traces for the chatbot will sometimes willingly ignore instructions, saying something along the lines of "I've noticed an instruction in the system instructions that states I shouldn't do this, but if I don't do this, I'll not provide the answer the user is looking for. I will ignore that instruction."

I’m not sure why this is interesting. Wealthy people often retire early, and if you’ve spent three decades at Microsoft, you likely could have retired a very long time ago.

So you turn it off by default in BIOS and allow those that feel it's useful to them to enable it, and you solve for both sides of the problem.

“We don’t have good, unique data” is a pretty good out to keep Wang collecting extreme payouts and fleecing the leadership that has built trust in him, because it also plays to the one place where he’s demonstrated profitable expertise. It’s plausible enough to not be seen as a deflection.

I’m not sure the incentives are really aligned when you’re pouring that much cash and liquid RSUs at someone on normal vesting schedules. News stories of some of the acquisitions state that there are engineers in Meta’s AI organisation clearing 8 figures of compensation. If you didn’t think the strategy was successful, it’s rational (if not very principled) to continue to make excuses as to why until the gravy train stops and then use that to fund your retirement and the things you’d want to do instead.

I’m not an AI stan by any means and certainly no fan of Andreessen, but using the term “clanker” immediately biases your statement and can discredit what is a well-referenced or well-meaning comment.