661–670 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must not talk to a lot of retired people, for whom every tech product is a bewildering nightmare.
They're the ones who are dying. Gen Z grew up on the cloud
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a spectrum between tulip wilting and fiber build out, we know deprecation cycle of DC hardware leans towards tulips i.e. The numbers being cited is ~100B is well within accounting/ledger maxxxing tricks relative to current pool of investment. Luu is not analyzing number's he's just listing and believing numbers, and analytically entirely avoids the core Zitron thesis... once you tap out of easy investor $$$, FAANG…
> On a spectrum between tulip wilting and fiber build out, we know deprecation cycle of DC hardware leans towards tulips i.e. Counterargument: As advancements in transistor densities slow down, the rationale for increasing depreciation cycles makes more sense. As the performance gap between new & 5-year-old hardware continues to shrink, then the need to replace older hardware similarly shrinks, justifying longer depr…
The economic logic is if current spend vs revenue gap is not sustainable... hardware prices / margins will revert towards mean. That $10 hammer will be compared against a $2 identical hammer (margin reversion/compression)... or worse, a $3 future hammer that does $4 / past $20 of work. The future player who only paid $2 can charge much less... i.e. simply paying $10 limits ability to price competitively. The future player who pays $3 has 50% more compute than incumbent who paid $10. The important DC TOC consideration, is in world where DC cost regress towards mean, opex > capex... so merely continuing to use that old $10 hammer is losing MORE than buying a $3 better hammer, i.e. the asset is economically stranded, it is COSTING MORE to run old hardware than simply buying new hardware. It's MORE than economically useless and $10 past purchase price not just sunk cost but dragging down balance sheet as amortized liability aka it is full write down / loss.
> For any of his posts that I read, while there are numbers thrown around, the numbers don't actually connect to a coherent argument. In many cases, as we saw above, the numbers don't even really support his argument (such as an MAU decline in Facebook causing Meta financial problems which would then cause Meta to spuriously insert AI in places it doesn't belong). I suspect he's relying on people's eyes glazing over…
Seriously, I expected more slight wrong before I read the article. Why do people trust someone who can't add numbers correctly to make predictions?
This critique is leaning really hard on their interpretation of "dying". They take the literal company is going to fail type of dying where as I have always taken it the same way he has presented it in his "rot-economy" context. They can remain financially "successful", but more and more people hate their products, their products are getting worse, their products are "dying". Google Search is still a good example, th…
If I have a billion trillion dollars but 20% of the population hates me, but I get to live in a giant solid gold mansion with an army of servants keeping the 20% away from me, have I really failed?
But more importantly, companies aren't people, they can't be unhappy or happy. They're like fire, you don't ask what the fire wants, you ask how to make it useful.
One thing I’m observing in these comments is a willingness of folks to project their own predictions onto Ed’s statements when validating their plausibility. Eg. “I think he’s wrong about the timing but I do expect AI companies to go to zero.” You can do that, but then you’re no longer discussing his predictions. You’re discussing your predictions, and your own positioning. Those differ from Dan’s essay, which engage…
Here's two possible set of predictions: - a list of predictions that are entirely wrong, from A-to-Z, and are not even resembling what ends up happening - a list of predictions that are wrong, but where the underlying points are in fact interesting and have some predictive value, and it's just the "last step" that is wrong For example, one person might say "oh it's raining in Dallas therefore I should buy some TI sto…
One thing I’m observing in these comments is a willingness of folks to project their own predictions onto Ed’s statements when validating their plausibility. Eg. “I think he’s wrong about the timing but I do expect AI companies to go to zero.” You can do that, but then you’re no longer discussing his predictions. You’re discussing your predictions, and your own positioning. Those differ from Dan’s essay, which engage…
Here's two possible set of predictions: - a list of predictions that are entirely wrong, from A-to-Z, and are not even resembling what ends up happening - a list of predictions that are wrong, but where the underlying points are in fact interesting and have some predictive value, and it's just the "last step" that is wrong For example, one person might say "oh it's raining in Dallas therefore I should buy some TI sto…
Wrong enough that the utility is seriously diminished. Predicting a specific quantity dropping to a specific level at a specific date is a lot more valuable than saying “those guys are cooked”.
And even if some minuscule utility existed: why should predictors be so coddled by their observers? We should be demanding more rigour from predictors rather than looking for new and creative ways to forgive them for their folly.
Being thorough and accurate might make you a lot of money in the stock market, but it's not a good way to get any media presence, because that demands being in front of people quite often, and basically nobody can be insightful and well researched in all topics of the day. Once you become a pundit, whether on politics or tech, and rely on eyeballs to feed you, you are going to be throwing stinkers. And at that point,…
> We have people telling us the next recession being imminent all the time. Yeah uhm so I'm not sure if you've like seen the world recently, but uh. Yea
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever listened to Zitron speak? He's not exactly the type to hedge his predictions behind careful language about how hard predictions are. He makes every one of these predictions with absolute confidence and conviction.
He speaks with all the conviction of a classic "Fire and Brimstone" preacher. Someone for whom the only metric is stirring emotion, not accuracy of statement.
Can he predict the future? No. Can he pretend to be able to predict the future? Yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an unfair characterization of tech journalists in general. When BuzzFeed News was around, I worked closely with them on technical aspects and projects to ensure that everything was correct and accurate, and there were very receptive to it; it was not a "directionally correct" thing, the journalists wanted to avoid any unintentional. That was also one of the reasons I was open-minded to helping Ed even though w…
Not to dunk on your friends and all, but wasn't Buzzfeed the exact outlet at the forefront of dismantling the credibility of the word "journalism"? Like.. they surely had valid pieces, but I remember them also being the ones smashing the system and trust to pieces by being very social-media-engagement-native (for the lack of a better term). __ The LLM as this beautiful straight man default human simulator tells me th…