I'd argue the spirit of entrepreneurialism and salesmanship in the story is more American!
I've just been through this process. Very painful. SF based company, US founder.
Same founder story - couldn't focus on customers, couldn't focus on product, always a shiny new idea to distract him from had just been decided or what needed to be decided. Each idea could be the thing that made the difference. Willing to work hard, very capable of talking a good game, not able to deliver.
Tesla had a product that worked, was essentially first and best on the market, not that many models, not that many features. Focusing on the hype and gloss is ignoring a lot of substance. What even is the point of criticising a startup for its hype when its exactly what people want to hear and aligns to a lot of real, significant, ongoing research?
"If the founder had capital and vision" is pretty much tautological. It's true but not particularly useful to know that people who have money and know what to do with it will probably succeed.
"Teach yourself to not judge people for being human."
"Be a more charitable, generous, understanding person."
Anyone making such blatantly judgemental and egotistical comments to a complete stranger has absolutely no idea what is frustrating to people. And is not being anything like a charitable or understanding person.
This makes the remarkable claim that the ontology document is correct no matter what the actual data says! And I suspect legal would have something to say about the ontology defining what a contract is.
It badly needs grounding in some real examples. It reads like pure navel gazing academia, or expensive, gold plated consultancy.
I have never encountered a company that talks about their ontology.
You need the warehouse.
You can benefit from a semantic layer. Optional, but loads of examples in the wild.
Definitions in a semantic layer are absolutely an ontology of sorts. You should avoid working with people who let conceptual purity get in the way of practical results. Concepts and metaphors can guide your work and help with communication; pedantry drags it to a halt.
Treating your ontology as not just a useful concept but an actual product you spend time writing and maintaining? Outside of it being a word you could reasonably apply to tools such as data catalogs, my anecdata is that I have never heard of it in practice.
That's your reaction to a page about photography that has photos of a model, and the photos DON'T feature her breasts? I mean sure, she has them. Many women do!
That’s a profoundly incorrect misunderstanding of the Citizens United decision, which was to remove restrictions on political spending by corporations.
In other words, by your distinction, the decision was about stacks of cash, not movies.
A case regarding a movie was indeed brought to the court. The court decided to make a far more expansive decision. The movie became a footnote, and has effectively no meaningful relationship to the court’s final decision or its impact.
As for getting lost in a discussion about the difference between an ad and a movie, that’s really going down a rabbit hole of deliberately missing the point completely. Some word play is just too divorced from reality to engage with. There are many very short movies, and any rational person would be able to distinguish them from ads to a high degree of accuracy.
Your tone is disagreement, but it's not clear why?
There is an individual who you trust to do good work, and who works well with you. They're not anonymous. Addressing the topic of this thread, you know (or should know) that it is not AI slop.
That is a significant amount of knowledge and trust in an individual, and the very point I thought the GP was making.
This is one of those articles that is too obsessed with amusing itself with its own pretentiousness to communicate anything interesting - which is ironic given the author seems thinks they prefer communications to entertainment.
You seem to be talking about a production-grade model rather than building an LLM as an exercise? Or if not, why do you disagree with the article's example of building a small LLM for $100?
I pay for a lot of software eg I used Screen Studio a couple of times, liked it, dropped a couple hundred bucks for it. Good work from a solo dev.
Datastar have basic functionality in the pro license. Basic UX capabilities like animation and copy to clipboard.
The devs aren’t “very clear” that most people should never need the license. That’s just PR. They’ve picked a bunch of features that even a teenage hobbyist might want to use as part of a trivial application. There’s no relationship between the locked features and their value or complexity.
I would avoid any web framework that might get in my face like this, at some random moment working on a pet project to try out a new thing, with an invoice demanding payment if I want to use random features.
“Perhaps this is a problem that you might like to address yourself?”
No I’m good, thanks. The Datastar community needs some work, going by the attitude of their defenders in this thread. Someone else is saying the way they charge money isn’t a monetization strategy. It’s nonsense.
Nothing wrong with charging money. Just be honest about it, take it in the chin when people don’t want to buy, and ideally have a pricing strategy that makes sense.
A todo list is a unique thing, it’s about remembering to do all the things you said you’d do. There’s no implied consistency from one todo list to another.
A checklist is used repeatedly, and it’s about completing a task (or set of tasks) to a certain standard. If you’re following a checklist, you’re aiming for consistency.
The README for the project is one of the most detailed READMEs I’ve ever seen. The landing page for the website has as much detail as you can reasonably expect, even including a couple of feature demos. There are clear links to the docs and the code.
The developer has clearly put a lot of thought into this content. Worth taking a second or two to see what’s available before criticising it.
As a one time political activist, I’ve met plenty of folks with strong convictions that are very pleasant people. The pacifist, vegan, transgender campaigner I am thinking of would never take the approach you’re describing.
I’ve been to events supporting a cause. They are full of people who, in support of their passionate convictions, try to help and persuade people to join them without reducing personal dilemmas to simplistic answers.
It makes me wonder: if strong convictions don’t cause or correlate to how you treat people, is there another explanation for why it’s so easy to find such anecdotes?
“Murder” is a curious choice of analogy, too. Seems to me this thread is very firmly subject to Godwin’s Law.
> When have you ever seen Stallman be pragmatic instead of idealist
Pragmatism vs idealism isn’t the point. My question was why would you expect someone you haven’t met to be an asshole, if you didn’t already think they were an asshole?
I've just been through this process. Very painful. SF based company, US founder.
Same founder story - couldn't focus on customers, couldn't focus on product, always a shiny new idea to distract him from had just been decided or what needed to be decided. Each idea could be the thing that made the difference. Willing to work hard, very capable of talking a good game, not able to deliver.
Tesla had a product that worked, was essentially first and best on the market, not that many models, not that many features. Focusing on the hype and gloss is ignoring a lot of substance. What even is the point of criticising a startup for its hype when its exactly what people want to hear and aligns to a lot of real, significant, ongoing research?
"If the founder had capital and vision" is pretty much tautological. It's true but not particularly useful to know that people who have money and know what to do with it will probably succeed.