gringofyx

This is why I now avoid OpenRouter and just buy direct from DeepSeek.

$100 on DeepSeek has lasted over a week, whereas on OpenRouter it lasted two days

No, not necessarily - the prompt-cache is only hit if everything prior matches... including MCP & tool definitions. So to benefit from prompt-caching themselves they would need to include the tools you define to the summariser.

If they were doing that, then a cheaper (prompt-cache friendly) option is just to silently send the whole conversation with the summariser prompt appended

Seems like this whole thing burned capital to run a dealer desk writing underpriced puts

A flat cert.pem file (or similar) can't say "distrust this intermediate".

macOS already has the verifier needed (Security.framework/trustd path that protected Safari). It would be good if MacOS routed CLIs through it.

There's some poor English and they list a Chinese office too. Probably not Heroku.

Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Bristol, Liverpool... probably in that order. I've heard good things about Glasgow, Birmingham and Cardiff too. The North West has been good to me and I've never really had to leave the area because there's pretty good transportation links over a wide area with a large population.

And I've lived and worked in Berlin too, it's nice, but by no means the perfect solution. And y'know... it means I can live close to family by being in the UK.

Reading some of the amounts listed is a bit depressing, I thought that the increased cost of living in London would justify salaries and rates much higher than the average.

By contrast I know from personal experience you can earn the same or better than what's listed here outside of London and enjoy the lower cost of living.

Conflating political ideology with corporate structuring was not my point, nor my intent. Attracting staff after 100 years of operations was my point, to clarify; I said "could" (implying risk)... not "should" (implying ideology)

I think we're taking the extremes as the norm, and it is clouding the argument. Let's just say there is risk on both sides, nobody is entitled to anything except the chance to receive remuneration that is deemed fair, whether that's through investment or salary.

Your last point is the most interesting, though, coal-miners were paid very well and by contrast I know (good) developers that earn less than the national average. I am not arguing (in this case) about software developers, but all employees from all backgrounds.

See my previous comment to you (above) - also play out the proposal in the article over, say, 100 years, ultimately it could end up as an employee owned company.

I did not say Google is a problem, I said that either the current mechanism or the proposed mechanism would present a problem for companies (such as Google) when hiring new staff.

1. Not all employees are paid above market value

2. Working somewhere that software engineering talent is highly respected is no measure of fiscal compensation

3. Those advantages of upward mobility are learnt, or acquired skills that people work at. There is no opportunity for them to be in the same position as a 1%er living off their parents money to invest and then continue to get rich(er)

4. You imply that employees have the ability to negotiate on-par with any investor

5. Your last point about $100k is odd, that's just supply and demand in a free market - and the sentiment is doubley-odd given that employee salaries have stagnated since the 70's, SV salaries have been proven to be (somewhat) rigged, also it is in any companies corporate interests to pay the lowest possible amount for any resource.

Lastly, your point about the 1% of the 1% is off-topic - and I agree that they're not necessarily to blame for the widening gap between rich and poor - but without proper incentives for the 99% to go to work, then that 1% of wealth could become worthless if society revolts because of the disproportionate distribution.

My point is simply that alternative vehicles for employee remuneration need to exist beyond the status-quo that's legally existed for decades.

Your argument is surely moot because it assumes that startup employees take on no risk. Not to mention conflating IPO with startup options/shares. There are many companies out there that have never, nor will, take investment or IPO yet are still successful. There's also an argument to say that any company that isn't profitable from day one shouldn't exist in the first place. Your argument also suggests that founders must go "cap in hand" to investors to beg for startup capital. In all scenarios I do not see a positive outcome for the employee, and it seems only more and more difficult to attract new talent

Either way it's a losing game, consider a company like Google - how would they attract new employees on either scheme given that the company has been around for 15+ years? The only people who win are those who get in early, or invest big. Any IPO ultimately results in people earning money who don't "work" for that money - that means the actual workers lose out everytime.

I know I'm going to get some backlash for this comment so hold on to your hats. By going for a degree you're going to the route most often travelled by most developers, you'll spend three or four years trampling over territory frequently covered and thoroughly documented, you may be required to specific materials and use specific languages. Three to four years is a long time and during that time many things may have happenned in the IT industry, you may also find that your enthusiasm might have dwindled somewhat. And then you'll be faced with the biggest dilemma...

How do I get a job?

Sure, having a degree might add some weight to your CV/Resume but it will not have the same weight as three to four years of experience in a skillset that is modern and relevant.

The problem with the approach of avoiding the degree route is what some might see as a lack of depth/insight into computer science. And that really all depends on what career you want. If you want to build mobile Apps and Websites then you probably don't need the in depth computer science knowledge. On the flipside, if you want to get into games programming or device driver programming or programming of computationally intensive tasks then you need to know that computer science stuff.

People here might say that the computer science you'll learn from a degree is invaluable, but honestly it's mostly boring junk that most people sat in an lecture hall of three-hundred people will struggle to get through because of the tediosity of it's presentation. In educational institutes you (the student) are expected to go out and seek the answers to the lecturers questions - makes sense right? But you're doing the work there, and most of the time students don't know why they need to know what's been asked of them.

A few final points: most of the self-taught programmers I've known have been head-and-shoulders above their CS counterparts. They have had an insatiable appetite to learn and most have learned from a young age.

I started programming at a very young age, and actually wanted to study Physics at University because I was slightly tired of computer programming by that age... little did I know I was going to make a career out of it.