I'll mention it here because it's tangentially related to your comment. The book "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families" about the Rwandan genocide and aftermath helped me understand the country and it's current state much better. The book has the added benefit of being from 1999 so has far fewer of the culture war components one would expect from a similar book released today.
ChatGPT for health questions is the best use case I have found (Claude wins for code). Having a scratch pad where I can ask about any symptom I might feel, using project memory to cross reference things and having someone actually listen is very helpful. I asked about Crohn's disease since my grandfather suffered from it and I got a few tests I could do, stats on likelihood based on genetics, diet ideas to try and questions to ask the doctor. Much better than the current doc experience which is get the quickest review of my bloods, told to exercise and eat healthy and a see you in six months.
Part of me thinks it is probably activists within ICANN that think the Houthis are liberators. I also think that it's not really ICANN's/IANA's responsibility to determine which government gets control of a domain during a civil war/uprising. It becomes too difficult for them to be the arbiter of who is the government of a particular country. How long must the Houthis control the country before they get to control the domain? Is there a percentage of the country they should control before being given the keys? If a "good" leader from another faction took over the country should the Houthis retain control until that new leader proves their goodness somehow?
I agree that we are only going to see solidification of languages due to tools like Claude Code. Why would I take a risk on something new if I can't use a much faster tool, it can already be such a battle getting adoption in mid/large companies. I wonder how a release like React would fare if it was released in another 5-10 years once LLMs are deeply embedded.
At some point the majority will learn that no matter the public messaging most large companies will do what benefits their incumbency over what is best for the industry or customers.
In my experience there has never been a good time to be a founding engineer even in companies that have later made it. It's much better to join the company 1-3 years prior to IPO/Sale where you get many of the benefits but significantly less stress. If I had worked at startups I would have been taking a 30-40% pay cut compared to the roles I did work and none of those startups have gone anywhere with most crashing and burning.
I’ve heard this a few times. Could you elaborate why? Surely at that point, less you are hired to a very senior role, you are going to get a very small equity % and a lot of the capitalisation growth has already been priced in? In exchange it is far less risky.
Do you just go for the market salary and treat the equity as a minor plus?
This whole thing seems like a way to build a regulatory framework so only the existing, largest AI players can continue and there is too much regulation for anyone else to enter the industry.
This is the thing that bothers me - we’re just talking about doing math, doing more thinking, doing more speech. That’s what these models are. But everyone who isn’t an independent (non monopolist) technologist is vying for control of something they don’t understand to achieve their political or financial goals.
