shamino

Paul Graham came out publicly to defend Sam, and we instantly have this blog post about, wait, just a sec, let's dissect actually why Sam is still evil.

Can we believe that Sam could actually be a good person? Today, Kara Swisher in her podcast on Pivot said, "Every time I tell people I actually like Sam, they become widely offended".

I mean, yeah, same thought after seeing the signatories. What are some of the cliches being used around here ? Toothpaste is out of the tub? Arrow has left the bow. The dye is cast. The ship has sailed. (Thanks ChatGPT).

LLaMa technically is only limited to researchers, etc...

agreed - can you think of any other model that has such unrestricted release ? Open means available for wide use

exactly. this isn't a leetcode problem where all you have to do is re-run the function, or do it iteratively vs recursively.

Interests align - those who keep the secrets are better off for keeping them (not just for punishment of breaking NDAs, but the fruits (pun intended) of revealing something wonderful).

Umm, tech salaries are indeed not falling in SF Bay Area thank you very much.

> Similar to balancing other social issues, I don't believe private companies should make all of the decisions on their own.

Then give up majority control.

This article needs a listen in compassion. It's all, "no we're not", instead of, "we understand why people feel this way and this is what we need to do"

I think one of the comments said vulgar and predatory. I second this. You don't need a bootcamp to break into Data Science, or Data Engineering, or Data anything.

This is my main grip with YC touting startups as a great place to join, but not helping them negotiating fair equity. Yes, founders deserve credit because they took risk, but they need to spread the wealth for execution. It should almost be illegal to give employees such low equity, relative to what founders get.

People have been saying these kinds things about Apple forever. Betting against a $2 Trillion company, not sure about that.

You also want to have someone doing a scientific study to be as unbiased as possible. As I understand it, (most of?) his family is immunocompromised. This doesn't mean he shouldn't do it, nor that what he's doing is not saving millions of lives, but it's a little easier to question the "salesmanship" aspect of it when he hasn't spent a lot of time in the field.

When giving out numbers scientifically, it's important to be precise, or have the uncertainty known. In that case, 96% is widely different than 70%. As Andy Slavitt says in his April 22 podcast, when someone claims to know something too precisely in regards to this pandemic, and they don't say "we don't know" enough, run the other direction.

I would argue that Apple is a luxury brand, and iPad Pro is an Apple product. If you're saying the Surface Pro can make people happy too, I'll give you that. It doesn't make me happy though.