71–80 of 216 posts
> Growth would make it worse, not better. Worse for the company as a whole, yes. But for individuals involved it is generally better. Employees get to cash in, founders or people who like early stage can and often do start something small again, new employees like structure and better work life balance, and investors get their return.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For quality to be comparable, you need to use a relatively big model, which will only work if you have around 64GB of RAM or more. The latest OpenAI local models ( https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-oss/ ), for example, are really good, but you probably want the 120b to have results at least near what you get with their best cloud models, and that requires I think 80GB+. If you don't have that much, you can try…
>if you don't mind the politics of using that what exactly are the "politics" of using DeepSeek? Feels weird to single out DeepSeek like that
For example, OpenAI's charter is "to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity". They go on to list more specific political goals downstream from that: https://openai.com/charter/
> Could it be bigger? Sure. But at some point — maybe even before 1,000 people — the vibe breaks. The intimacy evaporates. You stop recognizing names. People talk less because it’s harder to know who’s listening. Growth would make it worse, not better. > > Some things work precisely because they’re small. I'd argue this is true for social networks like Facebook actually. There was a magical period in Facebook between…
You could run something like Facebook but in tiny shards. It would be better. And require 1/1000th of the engineering workforce.
I am, as always, a negative focus group - perhaps precisely for same reasons I loved it, apparently nobody else did :-/.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's definitely the first result on Google and sort of ruins any credibility of the article.
Anyone who was part of the HN/YCombinator scene at the time PG wrote that piece (and many years later) would know what the title alludes to. Why would it ruin this article's credibility?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For quality to be comparable, you need to use a relatively big model, which will only work if you have around 64GB of RAM or more. The latest OpenAI local models ( https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-oss/ ), for example, are really good, but you probably want the 120b to have results at least near what you get with their best cloud models, and that requires I think 80GB+. If you don't have that much, you can try…
>if you don't mind the politics of using that what exactly are the "politics" of using DeepSeek? Feels weird to single out DeepSeek like that
Of course!
I feel like the main takeaway here is that if you want your personal project to last, you should run it on your own server.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could run something like Facebook but in tiny shards. It would be better. And require 1/1000th of the engineering workforce.
I liked Google Plus. "Circles (of friends)" is exactly how my brain works. So I had a family circle and computer geeks circle and photography circle and general circle. It was super easy to create and manage the Venn diagrams, and be in control of both how you share and what you see. It was even easy to share circles themselves! The joy of discovering somebody's shared circle with awesome photographers to follow. I f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought Google+’s Circles was a good idea.
Google's Circles is a classical example of something that seems like a great idea on paper but doesn't work in practice. It had too much friction: categorizing people by circles and then also deciding which circle should receive what. Apparently nobody liked it and it's one of the reasons Plus failed so spectacularly.
> Could it be bigger? Sure. But at some point — maybe even before 1,000 people — the vibe breaks. The intimacy evaporates. You stop recognizing names. People talk less because it’s harder to know who’s listening. Growth would make it worse, not better. > > Some things work precisely because they’re small. I'd argue this is true for social networks like Facebook actually. There was a magical period in Facebook between…
I think of this as the Dark Forest problem of social networks. The original "Dark Forest hypothesis" is the idea that alien civilizations are silent not because they're not out there; and not because they wouldn't love to meet us and form positive-sum interactions; but rather because they've all concluded — from evidence or pure logic — that there are likely to be scary things "out there" listening; and that, by tryi…
“The "dark forest" hypothesis presumes that any space-faring civilization would view any other intelligent life as an inevitable threat…”
> not because they wouldn't love to meet us and form positive-sum interactions
Not sure where you got this adaptation from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could run something like Facebook but in tiny shards. It would be better. And require 1/1000th of the engineering workforce.
I liked Google Plus. "Circles (of friends)" is exactly how my brain works. So I had a family circle and computer geeks circle and photography circle and general circle. It was super easy to create and manage the Venn diagrams, and be in control of both how you share and what you see. It was even easy to share circles themselves! The joy of discovering somebody's shared circle with awesome photographers to follow. I f…
I believe that’s mostly what killed Google Plus. People were introduced to it in the worst way possible, so nobody actually cared to try it out, even if it was technically a good product.