solarmist

As for why it matters at all. Besides national pride and prejudices.

The dispute is significant because controlling the islets dictates fishing rights and surrounding maritime borders (EEZ) in resource-rich waters.

Bulk discounts are definitely a thing. Even established businesses do that.

But the biggest discount people see is subscriptions. You get a few thousand dollars of work from a couple hundred dollars.

As one example: Different access patterns. If you're using the app and have a subscription you get cheap tokens in the hopes you need more at which point you pay API prices which are much more expenseive.

Nowadays. The last 50 years haven't been kind to people in the US.

Bullshit. We built a world that constantly exploits human limits, then act surprised when people hit them. No one has infinite willpower.

I'm an American and I've really never related to Charlie Brown myself, but I've heard Peanuts is huge in Japan and other asian countries.

There was also a discussion somewhere where they switched off the OSS subtitling software they were using onto a commercial product that doesn't implement many of the features (mostly typesetting features) of the previous software.

I get it and it does make sense. Humans always consider the unfamiliar dangerous by default, but I believe it's deeper and simpler than the arguments you present.

This is not a strictly human trait. Anthropologists are pretty sure we received this trait from our primate ancestors. It evolved out of family groups/tribalism.

Also, a large part of our brains are safety mechanisms. Many features are directed at keeping us alive which is why so many of our what if scenarios are about the worst happening.

In very tribal environments anyone not in your in-group is considered unsafe even if they look exactly like you (i.e. a tribe from 10 km away).

But the thing that has made humans the most successful species on Earth is our ability to override this behavior to cooperate at larger and larger scales.

Do these get posted publicly?

I’m not sure you really can, at least not in the way it’s often portrayed. Founders usually need a high level of skill or a clearly transferable capability in something already valuable. That phrase gets repeated a lot, but the more I think about it, the more it feels like an oversimplification. Maybe there’s a version of it that works, but it’s probably more about reframing or uncovering hidden leverage than starting from zero.

This is such a good point. People tend to focus on money as the main form of privilege, but that internalized sense of “I belong here” might matter even more. It’s not just confidence—it’s a kind of default assumption that you’ll be taken seriously, that you’ll have options, that failure won’t wreck your life.

I’ve seen it in startups too. Some founders take bold risks because they know, consciously or not, that if it doesn’t work out, they’ll be fine. Others carry the weight of “I can’t afford to screw this up,” and that changes how they operate. Even if they’re equally capable, the emotional cost of risk is just higher when you don’t have that built-in safety net.

And from the outside, those differences are invisible. Both people might succeed, but one was playing on easy mode and didn’t know it. The other had to brute-force their way through every step. That gap is real, and we don’t talk about it enough.

What are you skeptical of? I believe the problem this is solving is a framework that's not CUDA that allows low level access to the hardware, makes it easy to write kernels, and is not Nvidia only. If you watch the video you can write directly in asm if you need to. You have full control if you want it. But it provides primitives and higher level objects that handle common cases.

I'm a novice in the area, but Chris is well respected in this area and cares a lot of about performance.

Yeah, the mic quality was terrible.