Juliate

I disagree. I do not care about the details of a ton of stuff. I do not even understand them.

On the other hand, I do care about people that are knowledgeable of these details, specialized, and trust to handle them for me for a fee.

That’s true of banking, realting, health, security, building, manufacturing of everything I use (or almost). That doesn’t prevent me from vaguely understanding the principles and some bits. And that saved me a ton of time and worry. But for the few times one agent does not work up to his promises.

I am 49, I have dealt enough with try to do all by myself, and I do appreciate and rely onto middlemen way earlier now.

I have first hand and second hand seen more failure from this line of reasoning _as of today_, in the French/European tech sector, than successes. Not even talking about those executives that expect to use Gen AI to "help" in their process and financial reporting - at least the flag is bright red.

I've also met enough architects (or so called) in consulting, service companies as well as startups, from both a founder and a tech lead point of view, in the past 25 years not to entrust them too much with their hunches, long-term wise.

Especially because, from a sustainability point of view, saying "junior engineers are done for" is like saying "kids are done for": not that wise. Unless what you account/bet for is the drastic reduction/disappearance of humains (and then, a lot starts to make more sense).

Guys guys. I do share the sentiment.

On the other hand. Unless we have a breakthrough hardware/physical innovation, GenAI in its current forecast is not energy-efficient, cost-efficient, compared to human/deterministic methods. It has shown no capacity so far to « create » in the sense we animals do.

And all that, still being: highly subsidized (your subscription does NOT cover the costs of the service as of now, we are still in the market creation/capture phase), and without mesurable economical benefit.

Things are still far from being over.

Likewise, are there any startup for wearable devices that visually jam or impair digital cameras?

> This admin is doing nothing we haven’t seen previous admins do.

Well... lots disagree with that statement.

By 3 buyers who have no known plan to finance the purchase orders they have made.

Economic history is also full of examples of bubble bursts.

The question is: what is the use case?

If you don't have a practical use case, the probability that there is one AND that it will use your library (instead of building its own, adjusted to their needs) is next to zero.

(I have been there more than once a long time ago)

Edit to add: and it's not to blame. Just there are more and more libraries popping up these days, without a clear use case, even their own. Which is totally fine as long as they are clear about not having one.

I am not sure Ray-Ban envisions, or is ready for, the market and reputation backlash that may ensue the release of this, if hard privacy-related provisions (for people facing the glasses wearer) are not into effect.

Both brands have their own reputations. Ray-Ban has been around longer.

This is a beautiful idea, thank you!

For producers, ignoring a SHOULD is riskier because it shifts the burden to every consumer.

For consumers, ignoring a SHOULD mostly affects their own robustness.

But here Google seems to understand it as a MUST... maybe the scale of spam is enough to justify it. Users are stuck between two parties that expect the other to behave.

Everything is asynchronous but face-to-face, phone and video call.

I cut every communication tool settings that enable online status or "typing..." information. It sets unreasonable expectations no one should have (but in contextual requests on the spot).

Lots of opinions either way. What's peculiar is the disconnect in some arguments here.

If you are serious and down to business, taking into consideration the cultural bit over the efficiency or value of the relationship is backwards; apart from taking hints about manners and future expectations of communication with your correspondent.

If it's urgent, it's a phone call.

> I just think GP wanted to say something else entirely and borrowed the word "success" for that.

That was precisely my point in my initial response.

I guess so, but they still seem confused:

> Job's level of success. We never hear about them.

Success != hearing about it.

You don't hear or know about most people success, or failure, for that matter; even huge ones. You know about a very small subset of these. That's fame.

And I'm just not sure that "being a found of a billion+ dollar company" was what Jobs considered his own success; but a consequence or aside part of it. Actually, no one knows but him.

I don't think those kinds of realm (hell or heaven) exist anywhere but right where/who we are now.

And it very much depends from how you define what being hungry and foolish means: hungry of what? foolish according to who?

Curiosity, wonder is a kind of hunger; and for some, foolishness. Not playing by the rules is a form of foolishness, and depending on the context, and on who defines/thinks of the rules.

Satisfaction and contentment are good, but have you tried unsatisfaction and discontentment? They are also necessary, for without them, there is no movement, no change, no loss of equilibrium that calls for your noticing, your contemplation, and perhaps your action. Being alive is constant change.

I always understood the line ("stay hungry, stay foolish") as a call to being aware of oneself, being curious of one's own peculiar being and wants, being aware of one's surroundings and of one's capacity to say/make something out of this existence.

His level of recognition.

Success is something else, not about fame, not necessarily public.

"If it doesn’t, then it’s just income fuel to invest in what you actually care about."

And then, no worry if some salesman actually impairs your (time, education, work) investment with some unproven promises your boss happens to believe (or that competing bosses believe, which in turn downs the whole market area you are in)?

Or then, no worry if some salesman steals (without denying it) your own work and investment, to resell it for a profit to their customers?

Engineers are the _least_ impacted with GenAI currently being pushed on all of us.

If a tool solves your problem great. If the tool becomes the problem, the tool and its maker should seriously grasp the issue rather than denying it and doubling down.

> Banning infinite scroll comes close to banning good design.

If infinite scroll is good design.

> we might as well throw every designer in prison

No, we might as well convict every manager/boss that assign those goals to the designers.

Designers don't dream these patterns out of thin air, they have incentives to.

When most of the market using it is abusive, and a source of abuse, preventing the abuse to continue while it's being investigated, or better apprehended by the population/generations at large, makes sense.

> The real question is: where do we draw the line between protecting people from manipulative design and respecting their ability to make their own choices?

We do it for alcohol and cigarettes already: taxes, ads & marketing restrictions, health warning mandated communication.

Even rocks don’t last. What do you expect?

A sum or product of human knowledge is not humanity: that specific mission (putting it into space for preservation or contact) has been done (Voyagers and others) and is done continuously (radiowaves).

Making a dent into making humans a multiplanetary species requires making a lot of companion species as well; the task requires much more elementary stuff (relative to the mission), at the ground level, than Musk is demonstrating to do (at technical, entrepreneurial and political level).

This is a con, from the start. It just worked so far so some people fall for it.

If someone had the tech to cool stuff in space, that is required for this to happen, they’d have tons of easier and more lucrative opportunities right now on Earth to become the new richest person.

Where is the tech?

Oh wow. If that's 170k as an employee (not a contractor), yes, that's definitely impressive.

Totally.

Risk = (probability of it happening) x (cost when it happens)

That a man/administration decides to cut off, or take hostage, or tax, online services because they are hosted on their premises, but benefits to/operates for "once good friends but now very unfriendly, bad, incompetent, the worst people", this is definitely not a law of nature.

But, that he/they decide to trigger absurd actions with long-lasting damaging consequences, while not a law of nature, that happened more often than not in the past 12 months than in the whole century before. Or, granted, maybe not "absurd", but definitely "not in line with a century of rather predictable behaviour".

So... you'd be rational to consider that the risk has moved from "low" to "med high" or "high" category in a lot of areas you do not control.

If the customer disagrees, fine: their business, not mine. My duty stops at notifying and documenting the risk.

2k for a rent in Paris gets you nice places if you have the time to spend to look for it. Cooking your own food at home definitely makes a huge difference every month.

The suburb is quite nice too, if you get a few home-office days. For 4k? you can have a big house+garden at 30min from Paris center (https://www.seloger.com/classified-search?distributionTypes=...)

As a SRE, I got 65k in Nantes before I quit, and I've never had to think about any single expense at all, not once (having kids, house, dog, car, garden). That would still have been quite confortable in Paris (swapping the house for a smaller flat, and without the car/dog/garden though).

I definitely hire talent that can grow the business, and grow with it.

And that means knowing your 0's and 1's better than knowing how to operate the latest trendy calculator: it's easier to understand the calculator, when you know what it's made of; harder to work your way backwards, although doable.

Yes, finding people that master PostgreSQL clustering (and SLA/RTO tradeoffs) is harder than finding AWS-certified folks, but that deeper knowledge definitely pays off: you understand the tradeoffs why, before you migrate, not after. When you know the fundamentals, you learn their implementation way faster.

The "wildly used", locked-in services are more often than not, built with/over the "niche", no-strings-attached ones.

GenAI people still not getting that there's no substance in the output...

But you still won't get with 170k in the Bay Area, what you get in Paris, Madrid, Nantes or Barcelona with 80k.

In France, if you get 80k net, you do actually get ~160k, half of which is collected/distributed before by your employer to various mutualised funds (health, retirement, unemployment, state taxes, employee benefits, etc.).

And the mechanism is somewhat similar in other EU countries.