None actually, because I didn't recall the original amount correctly and I failed to correct for inflation, and Microsoft was already doing pretty well at that point. That was inaccurate to say.
It does make you think, though. If you too are able to work hard and build an operating system or save up six figures corrected for inflation, that still doesn't get you anything. What you really need is for your mother to be a good friend and socio-economic equal of chair of IBM.
Well of course. To be a CEO from a poor background, you need to work your ass off making wealthy friends early.
That's why going to an elite school is such a lifeline for people from bottom quartile backgrounds. Getting the opportunity socialize with people born at the top and be treated as a peer in an institutional environment is invaluable. That alone is worth the price of admission.
It doesn't have to be your parents, but it has to be someone with money who already knows you, trusts you, and feels like you identify with them and their interests.
Of course, you could also work your way up slowly and prove your mettle through decades of dedicated service to your employer. But I'm not sure how you'd be able to build that long track record of likability and trust to be able to raise millions based on work history when that entire history is a 3 month internship.
One can't even blame the VCs. If you're investing in things that are often partially fraudulent by design...
...do you want the getaway driver for the pump-and-dump to be a family friend you've known a long time, or a stranger that might not be a good "culture fit" for what the valuation game often becomes?
Being born into a 1% household and understanding the asymmetric upside that having the money and the time to speculate is far more significant than the civil and criminal legal violations on the way.
The most common way to go from one-percenter rich to .001% rich is to already have enough wealthy people generating capital in your personal network that you can raise capital on sweetheart terms to buy the labor of people who don't.
Then you sell it at a massive premium and repeat.
I think it's empirically dubious to identify the UW mainframes as the secret sauce instead of "being able to ask your mom for a meeting with the chairman of IBM followed by asking her for 80,000 dollars ASAP."
If the original creators of DOS were born into a wealthy family and on a first name basis with the chairman of IBM, do you think they would've sold it to Gates?
Trying to attribute the tech business "founding crime" feels like displacement for what is perfectly legal and accepted cultural practice.
Was there something about this specific model and submission that made you feel compelled to write this self-evident observation?
Or would you describe your methodology as more like picking a random sentence fragment as an input value then generating completions from your existing corpus without any post-input "learning" process related to the rest of the source material?
I think people are concerned about the large discrepancy in concrete claims in your previous comment and subsequent empirical information. You may have seen a headline or skimmed an article and missed some details, not a big deal.
The overall impression given was inaccurate and the implicit claim of a fully working end-to-end generated compiler was inaccurate. The headlines were incomplete in a way that was intentionally misleading. It was an interesting experiment and somewhat impressive but the claims were overblown. It happens.
What I find most concerning about this is the meta-dialogue. At first I was critical of the maintainers for closing this github issue as off topic.
Then I realized that the github ui was auto-collapsing a dozen messages in a row that were all completely devoid of any informational value and certainly sourced from forums and community discord channels.
This places everyone in a no-win situation. Someone who has identified critical issues that they believe the majority of a relevant community would be concerned about has good reason to signal-boost as much as they can.
It's a substantial request about very recent changes, and tone-policing it doesn't make it less true. The problem is that the additional attention literally kills the discussion. This also provides cover for people who may be making more emotive or ai-psychosis influenced decisions on the maintainer side.
Projects with a siege mentality which block and ignore criticism tend to go off the rails very quickly. On the other hand, maintainer burnout is inevitable for projects which can't shield maintainers from the anxieties and pathologies of people who seem to think that if they complain about AI enough, everyone else will stop trying to use and improve it it.