Crisis of trust in Altman reflects back on Y Combinator. They have significant financial motivation to downplay his behavior regardless of any moderators claims.
The real problem is that Altman has legitimately destroyed public trust. We already have way too many immature robber barons playing the oligarchy game for the likes of such as him to be positive for society in the end. If he had a conscience, it appears that he's sold it already.
PG trying to pretend that he isn't materially biased in the matter of Sam's image, even without knowing about the early investment that YC made into OpenAI, is incredibly dubious given that brand and reputation have such amazing value and are implicitly reflected upon YC in the case of Mr. Altman. The impact of this post on me has been to tarnish my regard of PG, although I will likely always think highly of his early essay writing.
Yes, this is exactly the problem with our "representative" democracy. For example, one polarizing issue this year may be whether a voter is willing to accept a candidate who acts like a mob boss or not, regardless of any other issue that the candidates are trying to stand on. Worse yet, elected candidates then have difficulty knowing which of the multidimensional issues mattered to their voters because all the information has been lost by the polarizing election system.
This is not good enough, in my opinion. It's hard to treat the justice system seriously because of bullshit restrictions on victimless "crimes" like this. I'll only be okay with this if alcohol gets reclassified as Schedule III.
After reading through the threads, I still think that '.lan' is a better non-reserved suffix to use for this than '.internal'; however, my opinion rarely has significant weight in the grand scheme of things.
Agreed. As a legitimate inventor and innovator, these management teams are signaling to me that they are not worth working for. The rest of talent that creates actual value, whether in engineering, sales, management, or otherwise, should seriously pay attention and do the same.
I would agree with you on most points; however, having worked within the fruit company directly on its chain of trust, I will tell you that the privacy angle runs extremely deep and is genuine. Regardless, that angle is obviously different and independent about being authoritarian within its privately-owned monopolistic marketplace.
I'd like it a bit more if it referenced "Rayleigh scattering" by name, giving someone who is genuinely interested the keywords needed to dig deeper into the phenomenon.
I came to the comments to say more or less the same thing; however, I would also propose that it should probably be updated to use python for maximum accessibility of the cool ideas therein in this day and age (said even though I am a certifiable schemer).
Oooh, now that's fascinating. What you say is known because of update logs wasn't in the article that I recall. Could you kindly provide a reference to where you learned this part of the story? Thanks!
In some cases, oddly, the intent of a function can actually become clearer when the logic gets stripped of all the bad naming protocols and names for the moving pieces have to be reconstructed from only its actions and contexts.
In a perfect world, this shouldn't be true and the content embedded within those symbols in the source code should be an easy lever towards relatively perfect understanding of both intent and implementation; however, software is a relatively young discipline and this is actually a difficult linguistic problem.
I can neither confirm nor deny that independent review of software, especially of components involved in chain-of-trust and firmware loading, also happens for some of the largest-scale communication devices available on the global market, as required by multiple governments before allowing heads of state and other critically important persons to use them unmodified. ;-)
Let's repeat this one for the parts of the peanut gallery harping on irrelevant issues such as whether object orientation was part of the design methodology or SEL4 part of the firmware runtime stack:
"To all software engineers; please refrain from engaging in criminal activities. If you are instructed to do something illegal, it is important to report it to the relevant authorities."
Vendor lock-in for maintenance has massive financial incentive, as was relatively clear in the article, even going so far as to cite some explicit numbers that are relatively big money when projected across the scale of an entire fleet.