Juliate

For a very specific frame of time, and a very specific definition of "return".

Looking back at history, most, if not all marvels of the world have been built without a ROI lens.

If you only see life throuh a ROI lens…

That’s not aspirational, that’s their very original purpose, which lands in their name.

> then there aren't enough jobs in any market for the students on their courses.

That has always been the case, because the purpose of universities is not feeding the market with workers or founders, it's feeding society with educated people. Which is incidentally an excellent basis for both founder and worker roles.

> There are many implementations of sin, but no matter which one you look at…

I’ve had a brief moment of hope, forgetting the point was about mathematics.

How would this make any sense or even stand in front of a judge?

Back in the days, the webring idea wasn’t driven by popularity groups and metrics but by affinity, from the perspective of authors.

A ring was thematic, friends, interest.

Very bad UI choice on mobile. Next to unreadable.

Why should any be exclusive of the other?

My take is that it is kind of exclusive today, because the economy is designed and limited against the ecology, but that's not a fundamental given. It comes down from the choice of humanity to extract itself from nature. That's a choice and a story we can identify, criticise, and counter with another choice. Which would take some time, but... that's all we have.

What is it actually? Is it giving status, or taste? Is it private or is it spying? Is it giving help in everyday life, that no other existing experience can replace? Is it a platform for developers to find a killer app?

At this price level?

This looks so much like an undecided mix of: 1/ a solution looking for a problem to solve, 2/ glasses that don't know how to brand for fashion, 3/ a preview platform.

I understand the website doesn't address users first, but it really feels like a missed opportunity to show a typical, simple use case in the front page (as in, "as a user, what's in it for me?").

A quickstart link is buried in there, and that's good, but the value of the product is multi-faceted and doesn't address data architecture only.

There are good GUI editors for XML?

Evil has a motive (defensive or offensive).

Stupidity has none.

You can derail stupid towards something. Even de-stupid it. That does not work with motivated people, even less evil ones.

Because he was stupid, and not evil.

The satire we need today is how we sort it out.

I'm sorry if that sounded disparaging.

I totally get that face recognition is an issue for some. And that some tech may be of help with that.

But if said tech implies putting everyone at risk (because the privacy is not properly implemented in this tech, and because it is even obviously weaponised as it is today), it is a hard sell.

Privacy is a fundamental right, not the end of everything.

And you axiomize progress.

Although the question isn’t one against the other. It is whether progress justifies treating people as objects, as data providers without consent. That’s not a curious axiom, that’s the basis of all rights-based systems since 1948. Or 1785 (Kant). Or 1215 (Habeas Corpus). Or 1750 BCE (Hammurabi code).

Rules are all made up (as tech is) for the purpose of enabling society and lowering suffering. Who was harmed? Everyone whose private personal information have been leaked without consent. Who was harmed? Who have been manipulated into voting? How has the damage not been diffuse and probabilistically significant? (otherwise, why would Cambridge Analytica even funded and paid for? As well as the whole advertising industry?)

And, a fundamental right does not need an existing harm to be justified into existence: it is a right as first principle.

Saying ja/oui to something, is saying nein/non to something else.

If all you have is taking sides with what ought to be dismissed, or rather, discussed and controlled, rather than let alone wild at the expense of most people, that's a choice that is yours.

How can we still believe in the trust idea when 1/ accidental leaks happen every single day and 2/ corporations do not even hide any more their intent and uses of the collected data? (Pokemon Go being the « funniest » recent one)

At some point, the regulatory/legal backlash will require hard personal responsibility (that is, jail consequences) for this to be taken seriously at the corporate and technical levels and so trust to be reinstated.

Comparing a natural ability to some kind of privacy-violating skill sounds a bit a hard sell.

Kind of like selling hard won skills as some kind of gate keeping.

Improving the quality of life of people cannot be done at the expense of the basic social needs of everyone else.

Right, but PetSmart was an existing retailer that added e-commerce, not a startup burning VC money on an unproven model: the tech worked, the hype-driven bet didn't.

GenAI has its uses. That it will transform everything for everyone, and that this justifies to dump laws and people, that's the part that deserves hard-earned scrutiny.

Market has the final say, not tech. If no one uses/buys the tech, as investor or customer... it won't feed anyone.

That's kind of proving my point here.

E-commerce succeeded, but not in the form Pets and WebVan proposed, and not in the timeline their investors needed.

The question is not: is it useful, but (as any investor asks): does this bet, at this valuation, deliver what it promises, in time? That's the audit we need.

When the bet distorts global semiconductor supply chains, displaces workers, and rides on mass IP infringement... skepticism looks more like due diligence than contrarianism.

I don't mean burst like that (neither a conspiracy), rather a striking coincidence: there are huge applications for GPUs, true.

But the inflation of expectations and investments in them because of GenAI, when this inflation bursts may impact everything and everyone.

She says something more structural than that: there's a pattern, sold by the same people, with the same contempt to social consequences and democratic rules: GenAI, multiverse, NFTs, cryptos; what else next?

Incidentally, each "wave" justifies massive investment in the same technology: GPUs, for transformations that do not materialise _at scale_.

That raises the questions: why? Who captures the value? Who bears the cost? Why are we always skipping the audit? What happens when the "GPU bubble" bursts?

QA is actual work. Building the thing is actual work. Each is not "the" work, which is the task of the whole company.

QA perspective and focus is just different from the one of the team building the thing. It's precisely because of their detached perspective that they can do their work properly.

Let's say it will be.

Who will then define, debate and hold standards/regulations/norms, then? and adherence to those standards, as well as the legal responsibility that comes with it?

What happens when a totally automated software is the main cause of the destruction of private property, or the death of even one single person?

Who is going to answer for these? (that is, pay, fix and possibly go to jail)

How are those legal consequences going to pressure the automated development industries to comply to safety/control rules?

If you care about: the consistency of your output, what you're selling to your customers, you have not much of a choice (than to control what you are shipping).

Not even mentioning the potential regulatory/market and legal consequences if you don't.

Makes a lot of sense.

One additional point of data about caring about exit interviews: I have been in a team where an excellent engineer left for a different company. He came back about one year later a more senior role, and was instrumental to the company success in the following years.