201–210 of 338 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it public good? Or is that a coincidence covering the real motive of an attempt to undermine the viability of American companies?
What?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would a company do any of these things? What is their motivation for any of it? That’s like saying cloud providers should be commodity and should open source all of their platforms and eliminate egress fees so customers can easily leave at any point in time. That’s a charity, not a business model.
Maybe these things should be utilities that can be swapped out at will and shouldn’t even be privately owned at all? Heresy, I know!
Pretty neat that you can just install it and start using it (at a Sonnet 4.6-level model) without needing to sign in or pay. Typically, Chinese websites are a big pain to log in or sign up because they require a +86 phone number due to legal reasons. Being able to use it without having to make an account is amazing for friction reduction. I could probably even just install it onto new machines to help with set up. I…
> at a Sonnet 4.6-level model MiMo v2.5.0-Pro is honestly the first Chinese model that I've tried where I really though why should I use Claude Sonnet when I can get the same results for a fraction of the cost. There was always something off about Chinese models that made it apparent that it couldn't fully compete with GPT, Claude, Gemini, etc. but this was the first model where I was like, this feels like Sonnet. I…
I have Claude but I don't want to ask it because Anthropic could decide to sabotage me.
Good, coding harnesses should be open source and LLMs should be treated as commodities. Minimize switching costs for consumers, and let people understand how they're interacting with the context and the LLM outputs. The industry has been moving the wrong direction with Claude Code staying closed (despite multiple times leaking the source code!) and the open source Gemini CLI being deprecated in favor of closed source…
Why would a company do any of these things? What is their motivation for any of it? That’s like saying cloud providers should be commodity and should open source all of their platforms and eliminate egress fees so customers can easily leave at any point in time. That’s a charity, not a business model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrote this eons ago: I fully expect Baidu and other tech giants on the Chinese shores to try and push the boundaries of technology. Silicon Valley (and the US) in general has always been the hot-bed of innovation. But with enormous increase in wealth in China (and to an extent in India), I can see these companies being more and more ambitious. Not long ago Andrew Ng of Coursera and Stanford AI Lab fame joined Baidu t…
"Death of Silicon Valley" in this case is such a funny perspective. Like, how twisted is the US's view of the market that they think "Competition? Oh no. Sound the alarms."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would a company do any of these things? What is their motivation for any of it? That’s like saying cloud providers should be commodity and should open source all of their platforms and eliminate egress fees so customers can easily leave at any point in time. That’s a charity, not a business model.
> That’s a charity, not a business model. Joel Spolsky in 2002 identified a major pattern in technology business & economics: The pattern of "commoditizing your complement", an alternative to vertical integration, where companies seek to secure a choke point or quasi-monopoly in products composed of many necessary & sufficient layers by dominating one layer while fostering so much competition in another layer above o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would a company do any of these things? What is their motivation for any of it? That’s like saying cloud providers should be commodity and should open source all of their platforms and eliminate egress fees so customers can easily leave at any point in time. That’s a charity, not a business model.
> That’s a charity, not a business model. Joel Spolsky in 2002 identified a major pattern in technology business & economics: The pattern of "commoditizing your complement", an alternative to vertical integration, where companies seek to secure a choke point or quasi-monopoly in products composed of many necessary & sufficient layers by dominating one layer while fostering so much competition in another layer above o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
KHTML is dead now, though. It was basically embraced, extended and extinguished by Apple and Google, who both wanted to take away the leverage of the community. Today, legacy KHTML maintainers are boxed-out of upstream decisions that might prevent Manifest v2 from swirling down the drain. I'd argue the story isn't very beautiful anymore.
True. Although the cruel twist is now that KDE's upstream decisions are boxing out X11/sysvinit/etc maintainers.
Also sysvinit is straight up obsolete software. Even if you hate systemd, there’s just no reason to use sysvinit because things like OpenRC and runit exist.
In addition, the adoption of systemd has lead to needing to maintain less init scripts because systemd units are just more portable. It used to be that every single distro and even versions of that distro required specialized init scripts for every application.