The person you replied to was pointing out a typo in their parent post: "more tan", referring to skin color and the demonstrable effect it has on interactions with law enforcement.
I am going to give a guess on this one. I work for a large enterprise and have been involved with evaluating different OSS solutions.
One of the things that tends to come up is support. Now a small OSS startup with no funding and maybe even no way to pay them gets an automatic no in most cases.
My guess is that it is less about VC money and more about “I know I will have someone to call as long as I am willing to pay” kind of thing. VC money tells the company someone else is confident enough about this so I can be too.
Yea, that’s pretty much what I meant as well.
Knowing the project is backed by a significant amount of money makes it a lot easier to rationalize using the product within your stack for the reasons you mentioned. This is usually more spreadsheet-acrobatics than actual reasoning (as is so often the case in enterprise) however, so YMMV for the actual outcome.
If you are what AMD needs to catch up then you can just go work for NVidia for 3x the pay. This market sucks but top tier engineers in the niche they need are not a dime a dozen.
What I said was: “it’ll likely make up for lower compensation.”
The point is, someone might join AMD because they believe in the mission, not just for the paycheck. I followed that with: “It isn’t always about the money,” which is consistent with my original comment.
The real subtext is something I care deeply about: Nvidia is a monopoly. If AI is truly a transformative technology, we can’t rely on a single company for all the hardware and software. Viable alternatives are essential. I believe in this vision so strongly that I started a company to give developers access to enterprise grade AMD compute, back when no one was taking AMD seriously in AI. (Queue the HN troll saying that nobody still does.)
If the stock goes up while they’re there, great, that’s a bonus.
Your original comment only talked about compensation and why AMD's stock might make up for lower pay. This thread tangent (starting with your comment) was about compensation and explaining why working for AMD, if your goal is to maximize profit, is dumb. Adding "well there are other reasons" after your original comment doesn't change your original comment where you had none of that context.
In the context of maximizing compensation, working for AMD is dumb. Your own comments support this.
This looks to be about the point where this exchange turned into a tit-for-spat...a really bad one. This is not what HN is for, so please avoid this in the future. I know it isn't always easy to do that, but you both violated the site rules really badly here.
"Then why is your original comment about compensation?"
I answered your very specific question, even gave you my own additional context as a friendly thing to do, and now you are going off on some sort of maximizing rant for what purpose?
This looks to be about the point where this exchange turned into a tit-for-spat...a really bad one. This is not what HN is for, so please avoid this in the future. I know it isn't always easy to do that, but you both violated the site rules really badly here.
I guess what I was politely trying to say is your original comment is misleading and pointless if your actual point is that things besides what you mentioned in your original comment are what really matter. So my point was - why make the original comment at all if it wasn't what you meant?
You don't think it's misleading to talk about how working at AMD can make you more money because of the stock appreciation, despite this being objectively incorrect due to it being a public company, when you don't think the reason to work for AMD is because of money?
Sure, agree to disagree. You have been anything but clear.
You go to work at ANY company, public, private, whatever.
You probably get stock options.
Those stock options can gain or lose value over time.
Generally, the incentive for options is that by working at the company, you're contributing to the overall value of the company, which makes those options more valuable.
I believe there’s more to choosing a company than just money. I don’t work at my own company for the paycheck. I’ve put in decades of hard work and I’m fortunate enough not to need the money. I’m driven by a bigger mission: helping AMD become a real alternative to a monopoly. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear to you. But when I was, you called my comment pointless and misleading. Now you’re just making it personal in an effort to psychopathically prove I’m somehow unclear. That’s not okay. Get over yourself, go outside, touch grass, whatever. I’m done engaging with you.
You do not need to work for a public company to own stock in that company. You can work at another company and simply buy that stock and get the same benefit.
I think you should take your own advice and go outside and touch grass. Cheers.
> You do not need to work for a public company to own stock in that company. You can work at another company and simply buy that stock and get the same benefit.
You have to work for the company to truly affect change within the company. That's the point you're missing.
If you really think whatever contributions you make to AMD with tens of thousands of employees are going to move the stock price so much that it's a better investment than working somewhere else that pays 3x better, then you're the one that needs to get over yourself.
Again, it isn't always about the money. 100% yes, a single individual can have a huge effect on a company and the stock price. Look at what Anush is doing and the stock price action since he started his new role.
Why you keep trying to make this personal, is beyond me. Feels aggressive and uncalled for.
I'm just responding to things you said. You told me to get over myself, so I'm just throwing it back at you. I think the only one taking this personally is you.
Let's just go back to "agree to disagree" because we're both tired of each other at this point.
Your original comment is pointless and misleading and I explained why. I didn't attack you or even your comment, I just pointed out what's wrong with it. Anyway sure, I'm happy to continue if you want.
> I’m done engaging with you.
You're the one that said this, not me. I was just trying to be kind and keep giving you an exit that you said you wanted. If you want to keep getting yourself worked up over a comment thread on HN, I'm happy to oblige. After all, according to you I'm acting psychopathically.
They do, seriously it is very common with male interactions. I have seen it first hand with tennis, golf, chess, and bowling. With golf easily being the most common
I find it helpful to tell people who I know only dabble in eg chess that I am "pretty good at chess" when they do not have enough context on things like Elo and FIDE ratings to be able to understand comparisons like that. Of course, if someone knows what Elo is or is an active chess player then I will more humbly just tell them I am only like 1600 on lichess.
I don't think this is necessarily bad. Compared to people who only dabble in things, someone who spends a decent amount of time on something actually is "pretty good" at it even though they might not be top tier to people within that same culture.
I think there is some popular (dan luu?) blog about this. You can actually pretty easily be in the top 1% of skill or knowledge on something, and while that doesn't make you a world expert by any means, it does kinda make you an expert to an average person. My 1600 rating is very good within the pool of people who know what chess is and can play it, even though it's not impressive at all for people who actively play chess.
Chess? Can't you just ask for their ELO? Or some proxy like chess.com rating? If you're good you must have played a lot of games. If you did, you got some number to back it up.
The majority of the population of the US claims the standard deduction and has all their income in the form of W2 or 1099 which is reported to the IRS by the employer. Those people can be served by a return free filing system.
The minority which have more complicated taxes can still file like they do today. But even adding on investment income and housing related deductions the IRS likely has enough information to calculate what is owed.
We shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of better. I know you weren’t arguing that point but just because the tax code is complex doesn’t mean it is complex for everyone’s situation
Apple TV has to be one of my favorite purchases over the last five years. It just does what it says on the tin and gets the hell out of the way otherwise. I've bought three of them and disconnected all our tvs from wifi in favor of using these devices.
they are great little devices. Has its own tailscale app too and can be used as an exit node! useful for me as the TV is pretty close to the fiber box on the wall.
Great device, if only they could make a decent remote. The older silver one was like a slippery soap in the palm, while the next (black) one was hopeless to figure which side was up or down.
My newer 4K controller started acting up recently and I had to ifixit.
The remote control is definitely hit or miss. I don't have any trouble with it, but I swear my wife has ten thumbs when she's using it. She hates that thing.
Starting at $130 is kind of pricey. A Roku Ultra isn't as capable, but is $80, and a Roku Express 4K+ (no wired ethernet, no dolby atmos) is $30. Roku likes to snoop and push ads too, of course.
And how usable are they if you're outside of the Apple ecosystem (i think I saw an article recently that someone was stuck and needed to use a mac or an iPhone to get unstuck).
I haven’t had any issues with mine yet but I have lots of Apple devices so I am not the best to answer this question.
But, as far as Roku they are subsidized by selling your data and pushing ads as you call out above. Not really a fair comparison. Just like you have to pay more everywhere for the ad free tier you end up paying more for Apple TV.
I will say though that the Apple TV handles 4K flawlessly. I am willing to bet that it has quite a bit more power than any of roku’s offerings.
It has been 8 years since I last wrote any C# code and I still miss LINQ to Objects. It felt so natural building up queries against collections and very readable.
They've made the language much more terse, IMO, taking a lot of cues from TypeScript/JS as well as other languages. Constructs like primary constructors, record types, pattern matching, and destructuring continue to improve ergonomics, IMO.
When you get to a certain volume you are required to use Lake Meads instead of Olympic Swimming pools as the unit of measurement. Look I don’t make the rules.
