I rarely encounter outright congestion in Australia tbh, but then again I avoid watching videos on the train.. so that's probably indicative of something :D

Coverage is decent on Telstra, but if you're out of town reception is rarely any good, presumably because there's little to no incentive to improve it when there's no on around to need it.

I'm very confused, explain how this is not the case with C?

I haven't written rust, but my impression is the benefit is more about deeper introspection of things like lifetime than basic typesafety, which already exists in C/C++ (and is likewise occasionally bypassed for convenience, so I wonder how often the same is done for Rust)

The person who is going to bother adding stuff to a piece of software is almost certainly by definition a power-user.

This means they want to add features they couldn't get anywhere else, and already know how to use the existing UI. Onboarding new users is just not their problem or something they care about - They are interested in their own utility, because they aren't getting paid to care about someone else's.

It's not a "nerd" thing.

Money locked up in companies is managed at the leisure of its management, regardless of how good that might be for anyone else (ie. the shareholding owners). Money sitting there doing nothing is a poor use of it, so most companies are encouraged to run with only enough working capital to keep operations going.

It sounds weird, but this is better for shareholders and the economy (and companies can raise capital as needed down the line) than having all companies hold 3x the cash on the balance sheet.

The argument would be different for a foundation by wikipedia, albeit you still have problems between what the wikipedia management might want (high wages, little accountability) and everyone else.

> Money locked up in companies is managed at the leisure of its management, regardless of how good that might be for [...] the shareholding owners

But the management is aware that the shareholders can apply (direct or indirect) pressure for the money to be used in certain ways. Ultimately the shareholder can sue the management if they think the money is misused.

In the ideal case, but shareholders are distributed and often it's nontrivial to get enough involved to justify the effort and expense.

I think most would disagree XD.

Phones these days are often more expensive than the chair and can be pretty inconvenient to replace, especially if you have nonrecent backups.

Yeah not sure about you guys but me and everyone I know buys their stuff in ikea where a chair definitely doesn't cost more than a good cell phone

I got an Eames chair recently and would be devastated if my phone damaged it!

And for just a few bucks per month, it can be insured and replaced for a couple hundred bucks. My chair is also insured through homeowners insurance (the US equivalent name, called something different here in the NL), and they would give me the value of the chair… but now I have to find it again, get it delivered, take my old chair to the dump, etc. The phone was a quick visit to the Apple Store and restore from backup.

Evidence?

Usually there's an accessibility option of some kind that disables animations; at least it exists in android and I feel like it existed in iOS (though I haven't used that in ages). I'm surprised Mac doesn't have something similar.

The point is that it's all just an excuse. So long as the app store is your only alternative they can charge 30% and get away with it, and they'll say whatever you want to hear so long as it lets them continue to do that.

They don't really give a shit about you, they just want your money.

If the money is leaving the system slow enough (via Employee wages and materials for chip manufacturing) I suppose it can go on for quite some time.

Sure - but nothing driving up revenue value is actually being created[1]. What's missing in that system is a way that money is entering the system. These deals are (in my cynical opinion at least) being inked to create the appearance of large continued investment and market excitement to pump or sustain valuations. Oracle actually spotlit the arrangement as future sales in their recent earnings and that seemed to be what mostly drove their valuation up.

Performative actions to drive up valuation and try and attract more investors absolutely feels bubbly to me.

1. Discounting products that are not only currently operating at a loss but are priced well below actual resourcing required to produce.

Customers pay for the compute. There are tons of CSPs selling the capacity to small and large consuming entities alike (both OpenAI/Anthropic + other small outfits we've not heard of).

The fair criticism of the infra $ is where the non-VC non-bank-loan cash stream is, but there could be a lot of B2B deals and e.g. Meta, TikTok and other behemoths do tend to make plenty of money and pay their bills, and have extreme thirst for more AI capacity.

Take Oracle for example (as a whole, not just OCI) - tons of customers who are paying for AI-enhanced enterprise products.

It's still the early days, as the cost of creating software continues to approach zero the rules will change in ways which are hard to predict. The effect this will have on other white collar industries is even more challenging to reason about.

That line of reasoning conveniently left out the explosive datacenter revenue growth that generates huge free cash flows. Even disregarding AI, it's double-digit compounding growth.

NVIDIA's stock may eventually get decimated (but the company itself will be fine, they have a relatively low employee account and insane margins), the Coreweaves of the world are definitely leveraged plays on compute and may indeed end up being DotCom style busts, but a key difference is that the driving forces at the very top - the Microsofts and Amazons of the world - have huge free cash flows, real compute demand growth beyond the AI space, and fortress balance sheets.

> as the cost of creating software continues to approach zero

"continues " is inaccurate. The cost of creating software is nowhere near approaching zero

In Sam's dreams, perhaps.

I think that's a fair point and sort of speaks to one of the indicators that say this possible bubble may be different than the dotcom bubble. I think that end-user revenue for AI is a pipe-dream - but the companies interested in compute have a whole lot of resources and so long as they are willing to divert those resources to prop up AI it can keep going for quite a while (at a smaller scale though).

There is a commonly held belief that there is a level of compute (vaguely referred to as AGI) that would be extremely valuable and those companies may continue to rationally fund AI research as R&D though if the VC and loan funding dries up there will probably be serious fights with the accounting departments. It is good to point out that companies with huge war chests do seem poised to continue investing in this even if VC/etc dries up due to the lack of end-user profitability - it'll be an interesting shift but probably not as disastrous as the dot-com bubble burst was.

>What's missing in that system is a way that money is entering the system.

Or maybe not enough money soon enough, and at this scale that could be more of a disaster than it had to be.

So far it's not looking like a business boom much at all compared to the massive investment boom which is undeniable, and that's where a good amount of remaining prosperity is emanating from.

If you were a financial person wouldn't you figure there were a lot bigger bonuses by getting involved with the amount of cash flow being invested rather than the amount resulting from profits being made in AI right now?

Money leaves the system rather fast in energy costs if nothing else.

Funny how unintuitive N^2 growth can be :D