smokefoot

I dunno. This all implies a level of central control that doesn't reflect how professional services firms operate. Mostly they're loose partnerships and local offices and partners have the significant discretion. Even legally they're mostly not structured as a global corporation but rather a loose association of legally distinct entities.

There's a tension between having a brand that reflects trust and institutional rigor and avoiding liability for the actions of partners in some far flung jurisdiction.

This has probably been posted before. As interest in hardware acceleration for AI intensifies, I started to think about whether analog circuits would make more sense. You can imagine actually modeling neural network architecture in the circuits and using circuit response functions as the activations. In theory you could make this super fast.

I'm sure people smarter and more knowledgeable than me have thought this through...

Yes. Each industry has developed accounting standards that reflect the nature of their business. You couldn't run a bank or a payments company with a simple sales - COGS = gross profit model, it just wouldn't make sense.

In health insurance specifically, profitability is somewhat regulated and this gets at the accounting issue here. Insurance companies should maintain a medical loss ratio of 80-85% meaning that fraction of the premiums should be paid to providers. The remaining 15-20% is split between administrative costs and profit. Most of the article's forensic arguments around this are weak and circular and represent a misunderstanding of the accounting itself.

Yeah but the smoking gun is that volumes didn’t really go down much. I would buy higher unit margins on a shrinking volume, but for total profits to materially increase that means prices went up without a significant impact to volume. That smells rotten.

Woodworking taught me a lot about planning and design. As a young person, I was like the authors brother. I just wanted to do the thing, not draw a diagram and figure out how much wood I need, or build a fixture to mark the stair lines.

Woodworking (the more constructive, furniture-making kind), rewards a deliberate, controlled process and it savagely penalizes mistakes. Those lessons transfer well to other disciplines. I’d have been a much better student if I’d learned wood working in high school.

Yes but what about AI? (Perhaps the most annoying words written in the last few years mostly on LinkedIn).

But actually in the years since this was written, I do think the world has shifted. Doing things on a computer used to be really hard. Even just installing a framework or getting >python to call the right python on windows. Then install Django and get Django to work with nginx etc. It was just a lot of thankless, frustrating work to get from zero to 1%.

Aside from AI, the tools and packages and culture of computing has gotten better. But AI means you just get all the trivial but difficult stuff for free. And I think a lot of people who would have given up now make it through to see something work and they’ll feel the thrill of building something. It’s just better and easier now.

Doubt it. Consulting firms run 30% gross margin and operating margins in The single digits or teens. I’d bet IBMs legacy portfolio is 40%+ operating margins.

Sometimes you might hear private partnerships quote gross margins in the 40s or 50s but that’s implicitly gross of partner labor and comp so it’s not apples to apples.

I mean no. The LIBOR analogy is appropriate. Large, long-term egg supply contracts are fixed to an index and that index was manipulated. That's criminal conspiracy and price fixing, not just a liquid market.

That's notably different from say the current scrum for HBM where the demand truly came as a surprise and scarce supply gets bid up.

Micron's windfall is justified and natural as these things go. The egg windfall was manufactured and criminal.

Maybe fair. I think my point was the author emphasizes how strange the software is. The further you are from the training data, the less well a model will perform. I haven't looked at the project, but it seems like it could maybe be written more conventionally. Or maybe not! In which case AI is bad at creativity and thinking outside the training data and that's a genuine insight.

The author admits that the logic of the language and the design of the parser are idiosyncratic. Even the solution the author likes is an extension of an existing hacky trap door. He could be more open-minded about the solutions the AI proposed and in fact, I think AI could potentially rearchitect this in a more structured, sustainable, and legible way.

Many developer criticism of AI coders could be easily directed at 95%+ of human developers. Much coding is monkey see, monkey do and keep trying until it does the things we want it to do. AI can certainly do that cheaper and faster and really this is why automated testing became such an important software discipline with or without AI.

Which is so weird, right? Like what is IBM now and how does a research lab make sense with the rest of their business?

The money-making parts of IBM are: legacy software and hardware (declining), consulting (low margin, low leverage), enterprise software (mostly redhat, not really growing). It's hard to explain how IBM research is accretive to any of that.

Um, did i just get mansplained compound interest by Paul f*ing Graham? I feel like this has been the subject of condescending advice since the beginning of time.

"But now you at least understand, from having done the math yourselves, that you don't have to cheat to become a billionaire. You've seen for yourselves that there are only two numbers in the calculation, the growth rate and how long it continues."

What could possibly be false in a two-parameter model of reality?

Or intel … but I think Samsung comes considerably closer. I’m not close to it.

I mean, I don’t know how long the NVIDIA moats can hold. With this much money at stake, others will challenge their dominance especially in a market as diverse and fragmented as advanced semiconductors.

That’s not to say I’m brave enough to short NVDA.