But who am I to judge? If I made a project as popular as pi I'd sell out so fast.
If Mario had instead just written: "I'm excited to work on the future of PI at Palantir." and nothing else, clearly this is worse?
> The fact I can't understand what Earendil is
From the article:
> I learned a few things. My European brain thinks pi is just another small, mildly useful OSS project of mine with no commercial value. My peers in the space seem to think it has properties that make it stand out over the alternatives. VCs and big corps seem to think that pi has commercial value. Some demonstrated their conviction by sending term sheets or "dream job" offers.
Mario thinks there's no commercial value, but clearly some VC people do. If you have the VC money, but don't have any ideas for how to justify commercial viability, why bother? If someone just handed me a big bag of cash and told you to just "do something", I could imagine coming up with Earndil. Make a nice landing page, write some nice guiding principles, and figure out the AI stuff later.
Yeah, but mainly just because what Palantir is.
It would be better if he just told us what part of the future pi tool chain would be proprietary, but from the article it seems that they haven't even decided on that, so I don't know what to make of this.
Same, but I heard about Armin Ronacher, and the things I heard were not exactly terrible. He's the creator of the Flask microframework, he's contributed to open source more than most people. Perhaps it'll be fine!
And, as Mario has written about ten times in his post: Pi is MIT licensed and it's not hard to find the "fork" button on GitHub.
Their intention to release products that provide a return for their backers, using a “free with paid premium” model.