This is all about OpenAI, not about AI being subsidized...with some sort of directive to copy/paste "OpenAI" for all the big AI providers? (presumably you meant s/OpenAI/$PROVIDER?)
If that's what you meant: Google. Boom.
Also, perhaps you're a bit new to industry, but that's how these things go. They burn a lot of capital building it out b/c they can always fire everyone and just serve at cost -- i.e. subsidizing business development is different from subsiziding inference, unless you're just sort of confused and angry at the whole situation and it all collapses into everyone's losing money and no one will admit it.
Source on it being subsidized? :)
(there isn't one, other than an aggro subset of people lying to eachother that somehow literally everyone is losing money, while posting record profit margins)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor)
Counterpoint: I Google'd "jmap gmail" and a top result is a comment from HN in 2019 saying Gmail will never implement JMAP (it has not)
That's a really cruel response, because this is important work. I don't want my kids beholden to bigco.
I think it's real & important.
I also wanna make sure people like me, who have to keep tabs on the intersection of "how can I help liberate from BigCo" and "how can I make a livable wage doing so"
It is, quite literally, real, but also something you shouldn't waste time on if you're already busy. (c.f. https://jmap.io/software.html)
Been here for 15 years, and there's standards for interaction, especially for 19 day old accounts. I recommend other sites if you're expecting to be dismissive and rude without strong intellectual pushback.
This. 1000x this. Even if it's a FAANG, do it, there's no shame. I had a good run at one, then the culture went to crap due to one of those long boring stories that still can't communicate how...easy it is for things to be awful, even when they shouldn't be.
When they are, just move on. Life's too short. Whatever blows you up with $2 million in savings would blow you up at $500K
I think there's an extremely wide sensitivity in range of eyes, I honestly cannot imagine how in the world a screen protector couldn't significantly affect color and brightness that comes from the display naturally (your comment is the first time I learned this isn't the common case, I swear)
COBRA means employees paying the employer premium, by guaranteeing COBRA, an employer is saying "We won't stop paying the health insurance company for _everybody else's insurance_, so you'll still have someone to pay" - it's a great PR jiu jitsu move, I didn't realize until this thread how confusing it is - I'm only familiar with it because sadly I had to sunset a company in California.
You're right, if you don't have a family and don't have _any_ paycheck deductions, don't pay _any_ taxes, and use numbers 33% below the average cost, it seems small.
Survey of purported 2019 data shows $570 * 12 = $6,840 for individual, $19,000 for family (for some reason, no monthly cost there)
So lets say you only pay the feds income tax, and don't bother with medicaid, social security, state income tax, 401K, any other witholdings whatsoever - you'll earn 85% of $160,000, or $136,000. Divided into 26 paychecks, $5230 biweekly.
If you're single, yearly premium would be covered by 2.6 weeks of work, or 11% of your severance. If you have a family, 7.26 weeks of work, or 30% of your severance.
That employee is distanced enough from the idea that people would genuinely want to leave that I kinda laugh when I read their quote. COBRA alone would eat up most of the severance.
Either people managed to get through a _whole interview process_ in a week, or they're fine with the idea of being jobless during the worst economy in 12 years, or they price the benefit of not being there fairly high.
Which then leads us to how the whole argument is blinkered. It reduces decisions to a cost benefit analysis where a significant part of the benefit doesn't have a market price. Then, it questions if the benefit was too large, but by definition the arguer is still at the company and thus believes the unpricable part of the benefit isn't worth enough enough to leave.
I've been developing for Mac and iOS before the App Store was released, and have experience the author names - in broad strokes, your argument is valid, but it's not correct - errors slip in when describing the Applescript interface as just a reflection of Applescript sucking, describing his issue with Apple having _fragile_ private APIs when his conclusion is the problem is _private_ APIs, and reducing the problems inherent in the walled garden as "making you dig through class-dump output"