If Warren Buffet would do a video on how he clicks through a few stocks on Google Finance (I know he doesn't) for a minute or two, it would be more interesting to "most people" than any other anonymous pro finance dude, despite their incredible expertise with Google Finance (or Tradeview, or Bloomberg, etc.). The person behind an action does matter, as harsh as that is to some. The person represents an aggregate of proven past achievements, and therefore, we tend to value that in when checking out new things they do.
don't think of your video as the "best way to do it", we'd love a video of how you specifically go through these things rather than a hyper-optimized way to go about it. it may be true that the next guy in here has a much more advanced process, but it surely doesn't hurt seeing someone with a 'bit of history' on the matter jump-n-run their way through small projects like this. I believe it would bring some comfort to those who feel like they're a thousand years behind already.
Very insightful comment, thank you. I do agree and tend to critize the discounting of other people's intelligence when I read similar things (there's usually a lot more to it), but that one dude in this case really is a disaster, exceptionally so. Your argument stands however, and while I think you've written down from many years of experience looking back, it does make me sad a bit that this "assumption" is not what companies strive for, because I do believe it would ultimately be rewarded in success: "We assume it's our job to do a good job, and our bosses' job to notice and reward a good job".
The comparison to a war zone is, despite most of us sitting in front of screens and not having to live through such actual horror, quite on point, I think. A failed or misguided strategy hits those on the front first and hardest.
All good advice, I do disagree with one statement, however, mainly because I've seen this getting violated many times now:
> "Make sure that your role (as an engineer) in your company is in the most critical part of the company as you can handle."
The main problem here is how much the organization wants to think it can continue without those crucial parts, I've seen wild things go down in this regard, and I think we'll see a lot more in the near future with people hoping that AI will take care of it. And, on the flipside, and much to my surprise, how often the org can actually survive through such disaster cuts regardless, even though they'll end up at a worse place than they were at before, but the simple act of surviving it -- at that point -- is enough of a success to continue onwards.
Great comment, I like the "managing up" part, I'll share that with her. I think this is actually a solid piece of explaining part of the puzzle. Her entire focus was on her team, she's always been taking care of that part first. The dude who ran the train off the rails has zero interest in her and her peers (part of who have also been let go now), so it's likely he's been doing a great job managing the story from his level upwards. The Gervais principle was just posted a moment ago by someone else, I enjoyed reading that!
Yeah but why does it always end up in such autocratic behavior? On paper, I'd naively argue, any team or organization, or even individual, who continues to actually deliver value for the company, shouldn't they get to have a say in where the ship could go to avoid sinking it?
That's a more noble aspect of framing the question, and I guess I could even see why someone may try to not kamikaze themselves out of a financially very juicy system even if it was their own actions causing the trouble. However, they all operate in some form of management mesh, so clearly, one level up or across the line must notice or know who caused the chaos?
Maybe it is the nature of how failure is expressed at that level, to know a team of 30 has been let go and is not available as your extended arm to execute anymore. So, where it manifests as a job loss at a level lower, it is merely a limitation of power for them.
Yeah, they onboarded A LOT of folks with that original pricing and quality. It was "good enough" for most use-cases, like many, I work in existing code-bases and do a lot of "multi-file" edits, that aren't hard to do technically, just take a lot of time and must be done precisely enough. For that, it was perfect.
I wonder how many people will stay, there's still a huge void in alternatives on that original pricing.
As someone who does frequently go fly fishing, this is essentially a nice pat on your back, as you'll mostly know where to click, I think. It's made overly confusing however, this could be way simpler and not as scientific. Fish aren't always that predictable and reliable in picking their spots.
This is the e-mail they've sent out. Looks like everyone is moving from attracting to milking now:
Dear DeepSeek API user,
We plan to raise the overall pricing for DeepSeek API services in the near future, with a significant increase expected. Please plan your usage accordingly. The specific pricing plan will be subject to official notice. Please keep an eye on the Open Platform announcements and check your email for further details.
If you continue to use our services after the billing adjustment, you will be deemed to have accepted the adjusted billing terms. If you do not agree, you may choose to cancel your service and apply for a refund. Should you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you for your support and understanding!
DeepSeek Team
Does anyone happen to have a grep or similar that helps me check if this is showing up anywhere in the trillions of files in node_modules (or pnpm store)?
Well, I have no idea how complete this is, but perhaps a neat Christmas-time-project for anyone with seemingly unlimited tokens to take this and let it build up a simulator, using the real code to drive simulated machinery.
I’m sorry to hear about your very odd friends, but I suggest you consider traveling more yourself and gather some personal insights of the world. You should very quickly come to realize that Europe is not one place, one kind of people. This isn’t really something one would say, having spent even just a minute in one or two places here that aren’t Germany or France. Odd to read that.
We've heard that before, haven't we, Apple? I feel the right way to fix the trust issues would be to announce this when it's actually done. Like, here's Siri AI, and you can download and use it, right now.
We should all send our already-generated UUIDs to a shared database, we could just put it on Supabase with a shared username/password posted on HN, so we can all ensure that after generating a UUIDv4 locally, it's not used by anyone else. If it's in the database, we know it's taken.
It's a super simple mechanism, check in common worldwide UUID database, if not in there, you can use it. Perhaps if we use a START TRANSACTION, we could ensure it's not taken as we insert. But that's all easy, I'll ask Claude to wire it up, no problem.
user-generated (as in: on the user's phone) was only at the very early stages of this product, and we've since moved to on-server. It's a cash-register type of app, where the same invoice must not be stored twice. So we used to generate a fresh invoice_id (uuidv4) on the user's device for each new invoice, and a double-send of that would automatically be flagged server-side (same id twice). This has since moved on to a server-only mechanism.
The database flagged it simply by having a UNIQUE key on the invoice_id column. First entry was from 2025, second entry from today.
yeah, any sort of additional semi-random data could've helped prevent this, I'm sure. That, however, is also kind of the idea of UUIDv4, it has lots of randomness and time built in already.
The only guesses I'm having is that we originally generated UUIDv4s on a user's phone before sending it to the database, and the UUID generated this morning that collided was created on an Ubuntu server.
I don't fully know how UUIDv4s are generated and what (if anything) about the machine it's being generated on is part of the algorithm, but that's really the only change I can think of, that it used to generated on-device by users, and for many months now, has moved to being generated on server.