As for the new city risk, you take that risk with the potential upside it could bring, but everyone will be wary. People new to a city are a risk because of all the reasons they might've left an old city.
92 karma · joined June 16, 2024
As for the new city risk, you take that risk with the potential upside it could bring, but everyone will be wary. People new to a city are a risk because of all the reasons they might've left an old city.
Overall looks like a great tool that I'll look into for my next projects.
Is it the harm provided? Then what do we count as harm, and where is the line.
IE, There's no one stopping me from eating unhealthy, IE sugary foods, which are heavily addictive. I ride a motorbike, and I'd consider myself addicted to that, and it's got a high chance of harm, but we don't ban those. Ditto with gaming, social media, hobby XYZ.
I personally think the freedom to choose your vice is reasonable.
New social media competitors (ie Tiktok) have won users by having even more powerful algorithms rather than other options.
I've known a bunch of people who have said 'blogging is dead' but that's often shared with a lack of sharing the work in the first place or sharing it.
I'd pay the same for chocolate bars that were half the size if they were easily available.
Not that the addictive apps are great, but if we're talking locking, it's deciding between 'paying for' and 'receiving for free' with lock in being constant
I hate using SMS, but I'm forced to due to people I know using it, and it's 'openness' changes nothing for me as the end user.
You make the assumption that it's not in everyone's best economic interest to follow the rules. People will change before they are all removed.
> Apple created a developer API to request ratings and reviews. Apple 100% approves of and encourages the practice. Indeed, Apple's own apps in the App Store request ratings and reviews.
And they added various limitations to this API to prevent bad actors, which clearly is being worked around by enough apps that it makes sense to enforce this more.
Adding requirements for apps to remain on the App Store is fully reasonable, and keens the ecosystem usable for users.
Personally I hold the opinion that the investment into data centers would shift into something else, so no real GDP drop, but I'm not sure that's a certainty the same as 'bailout keeps the current story going'
If I was to go further into that, I'd say that Anthropic has grown from $9B ARR Dec 2025, to $47B at their Series H.
I'd say that Anthropic is still a growth stock, so their $1T valuation is based on expected ARR/growth over the next year, and if we assume a double in ARR (justified by their supply constraints as proof of demand), that's 10x Valuation to revenue.
We could consider valuing by P/E, but they're in a growth stage so that's a waste of time, hence why investors focus on growth, and hence ARR growth is hugely important. If they managed $100B ARR, the same P/E as other top software companies by marketcap, they'd fit in that lineup.
If Anthropic was to hit $100B ARR, they be in similar ratios of ARR:Valuation to Meta, MSFT, Apple, etc. If you assume per token price reduces, and 'per intelligence' prices to reduce, which bullish investors would, you'd also assume a good margin over time, (which rumours appear to support for Anthropic).
Considering leaks suggest Anthropic's ARR would be $47B, that'd be a 20x valuation, but it wouldn't shock me if Anthropic doubles their revenue in the next year or two, in which a 10x revenue could easily support a $1T valuation, and boom there's your ROI, but considering they've raised $135B total, and their ARR is 30% of that, I'd consider that a pretty good ROI, especially if growth continues.