I think that's a very weird and dishonest take. To me, it reads as written by reflex rather than in good faith.
You can point out that something isn't a good look and not be a pearl-clutching culture warrior, although for people who feel strongly for/against it certainly doesn't feel this way. The marijuana culture in general is in my experience generally perceived as tacky and I personally know many who use but want nothing to do with the culture itself because it's a bunch of people whose humor essentially equates "weed = funny" in the same way kids equate "poo = funny". As usual it's a loud majority making the rest look bad, of course, and not a general rule about how marijuana users behave.
It is well known that similar people get along and stick together, and if you manage a community you will know that whatever you put on a pedestal decides what kind of new people are attracted, and what kind of people stay. If you want to build something community driven, this is something you will need to manage. Sure, you can put this kind of stuff on the home page, but your home page tells new users what the community looks like.
As an example you are probably familiar with, Reddit solved this using subreddits and the front page - the content shown to new users is almost by definition the most popular and agreeable content that most people like, which is good for adoption. I think we would both agree reddit would seem a lot less attractive if to new users if the user is shown a random selection of new posts from all across the site. Instead, it is the users responsibility to find niches that may fit them better than the average opinion. Most subreddits are out of sight for those who don't care/don't want to interact with it.
If you want to show off your product and want adoption, would you rather nobody tell you and suffer from a lot of people turning away with no idea why? Or would you prefer people point out possible issues? It doesn't mean you have to agree, but data is important, and I think anyone with any community work experience could tell you the exact things I have written.
As a side note, having "Weed Smoke Willie" be a featured game on the front page isn't really a good look. As the saying goes "birds of a feather flock together", and I think a lot of people will see that and think "okay so that's the kind of person that uses this platform"
Is it radical to (through regulation) force part of the sales figure to go towards a trust that pays for CDN hosting+some simple server for authenticating ownership in the case of the service shutting down?
It could even incentivize actors to consider other options, like selling access to download the files themselves
Frankly, considering this is a laptop, I wish they spent more effort on delivering a flush 1gbe module rather than a 10gbe module. It has become an elephant in the room every time someone asks about my framework laptop. It... sticks out like a sore thumb, per say.
China aren't offering a cheaper solution. They are subsidizing an existing one (which is already subsidized) in order to gain foothold. The difference is that in the US subsidies come from VC, while OP implies subsidies come from the AI labs that buy the training data (which may as well also be VC backed, so just one extra hop).
This isn't "the market working as intended", this is an exhaustion fight to the bottom where the one with most money gets to stay in the market. As with most venture capital startups. I believe this VC tactic is a well documented "cheat code" to bypass market forces and build a monopoly. I find it hard to compare that with a free market.
However, I don't really mind China "stealing" from Anthropic. For us consumers we are getting the cake and eating it too. I.e we are getting rapid improvement to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars in funding, yet the market remains big enough that there's a chance of it not ending up as a monopoly in 20 years. And venture capital are footing the bill. A part of their investment is practically being redirected to fund Chinese AI development. It lets us live out our lives as happy CAC farmers[1].
So I would argue its not as much of a "cheaper solution" as it is intentionally and maliciously abusing another company's product to extract more value than the billing plans intend (given an average user), and further subsidizing the product by selling this data to competitors. But I don't necessarily think its a bad thing for us end-users. Nor for the market. But it is bad for Anthropic and its investors.
Living in Japan, most popular concerts are handled this way. It really really sucks to not get a ticket, and it sucks even more that we need to do it this way because of scalpers. But hey, if it means I overall have a better chance of getting tickets (at list price at that), hey, I guess it is worth it.
I wish there were better ways of defeating scalpers.
I can't decide if this is a "techbro doesn't understand human factors" post or not, especially considering geohots reputation.
I do believe it is possible Anthropic are legitimately trying to start political discourse, but if they are they are either sacrificing themselves on purpose or shooting themselves in the foot. Others in the comments here are pointing out that there are many incentives for them to get into politics. Maybe they see possible outcomes worth the short term problems.
If it is just marketing and FUD, it's worth considering that a good lie is usually based in truth.
Let's say Anthropic were a "hippie organisation willing to sacrifice revenue for morals" (or pick your own, I'm just giving an example). Could they play the politics game better?
Immediately the wallpaper looks AI generated, and for me that immediately removes any trust in "graphic design" and "attention to detail. But the rest is cool
Am I the only one who feels Boston completely missed their chance and fell behind by being slow on selling robot dogs?
Chinese companies were quick to jump in and fill that unfulfilled demand. I work with robots and have never seen a Boston machine irl. Tonnes of Chinese though
I personally know other people who have filed similar complaints, and the Norwegian Datatilsynet explicitly stated they acted based on many complaints. I don't think they care about a single person's voice in this, even if they "helped create the law".
It's a shame, but it probably says more about Datatilsynet's capacity. Frankly it would be great if you could simply say "this company did something dodgy", provide proof, and immediately get results. But that's not the world we live in.
Part of the problem is that even if you did a good job it doesn't really matter because the rest of the industry isn't, so no user wants to give you a chance
That's good for you but the demand is so low SpaceX is leasing a considerable amount of its compute to Google and Anthropic to compensate. Regardless of whether it is useful, it is clearly not popular
I just don't see the average consumer ever needing more than 10gbit. In fact, I can tell you right away most consumers wouldn't notice if they were running 500mbit vs 1gbit.
4G has been enough for a decade, 5G was mostly just an infrastructure and capacity improvement and most consumers could never tell you they notice a difference between the two. The human eye can only see so much resolution, we don't need 8k video. I don't think consumers will need more than what they already have. At least until some new novel media format that gulps down bandwidth comes around.
This isn't necessarily all bad news. There is still a push for higher bandwidth for datacenters etc, which will keep pushing technology forward, hopefully making consumer and ISP grade equipment cheaper.
If I built a house I'd probably run ethernet. Maybe play around with a 10gbe core network. But it wouldn't really give me any benefit, it's not like disks are that fast anyways.
Working with k8s myself I'm somewhere in between you and the article on opinion. I think k8s is good when you can afford to hire a person dedicated to managing it (or at least find someone with experience in running it that can make it part of their MO)
That is, k8s is probably best considered when you are beginning to consider having an infrastructure department, or if one of your early hires knows Kubernetes and is opinionated in a way that is less "throw cool and complex stuff at the wall"* and more "the 5 things I want in a k8s cluster that I don't want to spend much time on and should just work"
My understanding of the 2000s and 2010s was that there was a big focus on inventing self service deployment systems for developers, and k8s is that solution(!), for the same scale that would begin considering re-inventing the wheel internally anyways
Vibecoded website with poor UX. Loving that the website is both trying to be fancy by having a floating player you can drag around with a playlist, while also wiping everything if you click the wrong link. No human made this, or paid it any attention at least.