1123581321

It’s Nash Edgerton, and yes, he’s good.

Love the idea of their parents calling them Joel and Noel. :)

I don’t think so, other than it’s an opportunity for younger companies to enter the market and they charge less. We should be seeing good price competition right now just from the age of all these new companies.

I don’t have a good model for what lower B2B prices would look like when company age/growth aggression/pricing unsophistication are factored, though. I don’t take the presence of some downside for granted because projects like this can be taken by incumbents and bundled into high margin services (copyleft helps a bit here.) Would welcome data.

This model to depress prices does definitely work in B2C, but it’s not necessary to develop an open source app to get cloned to drive down prices there; it happens to everyone.

It's fine to do; it's just not solving a problem for greater software or developers.

I am both a buyer and seller of this business model, myself.

That’s just a commercial SaaS suite using open as a marketing hook, unless I’m missing something. Many companies start this way and become entrenched.

There's still a pipeline of them coming to Proton from Google and Microsoft, with about as little research as when they decide to leave Proton.

Try having a hook log the usage, and then feed the usage into the session when it’s high.

You can tell Claude Code to detect and watch its usage. Have it refuse to work at 90-95%.

You could ask that about any company that sells B2B goods and services. Not every person or company is great at vertical integration.

No, but if you're on a 3-5 year refresh cycle and this is your year, it'd be lame to not have the latest chip!

It's simpler and better for both hardware makers and buyers to just keep refreshing instead of trying to get clever about who deserves the current series of chips in their form factor, assuming the refreshes are of similar cost, utility etc.

There’s a good model by or popularized by Patrick Lencioni that I’ve rarely seen. It sorts values into aspirational, accidental/historical reality, permission-to-play (I.e. mandatory values in your industry), and the rest. According to the model, the rest are the only good ones. You rarely see them because the other three types are easy and safe to say to leadership.

I was wondering how many bad faith questions you were going to ask before something like that. They were still good clarifying questions, though, even though intended otherwise. Hopefully you understand the issue with the word ownership better now.

No, there is only one physical copy for you to sell, and you’re not granted ownership of the music itself. However, if a law were to be passed that grants ownership of the music on the CD, you would be able to sell unlimited copies of the music.

No. You can sell your one copy of your book you own. It’ll leave your possession when the sale completes. The new owner can sell it.

Software has different properties. If you own it, you can sell it without losing your copy, so you can keep selling it.

It’s software, so if you own it, you can sell or give away as many copies as you want.

It’s hard to stop because it means denying a dollar or two to a human in front of you who wants it and tried to earn it during your transaction. It’s not immoral, just less than ideal, so it’s endured.

Thanks. Just something to consider! You’re right that it wouldn’t be a big deal to add two or three devices individually.

Neat. Thought about syncing the key with iCloud Keychain towards supporting any of the user’s devices connecting? Optionally; I understand the appeal of the current storage method.

Yes, that is correct.

I’m sure if you write “supposed” one more time, reality will adjust for you. :)

Does Muse support sharding?

The sibling comment (Bladerunner analogy/nightmare) is a great answer.

Current models have passed a formally administered Turing test.

If you’ve never participated in a formal Turing test, either as human user or as a responder to the human, you might find it interesting, and possibly humbling.

Not baloney. Someone who thinks they can decide what’s important about a production, not the production designer or manager, is likely to draw the line at the wrong place. Someone who faithfully implements detailed instructions is more trustworthy. A quick way to check if that’s the case helps to determine which kind of person oversaw the work.

I used to work as a developer at creative agencies and saw this all the time. There were developers who had a hard time believing that they should implement designs to the pixel because they thought a bit of padding didn’t matter so long as they got the important items right. They were almost always the ones who ended up missing important details (copy, working forms, performant databases etc.)

I don't think it's equivalent because it's paperwork they now have to think about, they're wondering if it's wiping away old employment promises or systems, did everyone get one of these offers, etc.

Definitely see how some would prefer the job reconsidered, though. There's no system that makes everyone happy, including to never sell a business.

These things are good to think about; appreciate it.

I think that last point is opposite; it’s seen as heartless when the new owner of a business goes through rehiring existing employees instead of assuring them they still have a job.

Individual tax rates would be set much higher if they were calculated based on personal budget surplus.

The personal tax prep burden would be unbearable without cheating or taking a statutory amount of personal expenses, which is essentially our current situation.

Arguably encouraging people not to save any money would be a moral hazard.

However, I think you’re really just saying you’d like personal taxes to be lowered, yes?

Sounds like you could go to a different shop right now, that stands out for its ice cream instead of its signs. :)

It depends. There are hidden limits in GitHub’s gql. Some will time out above certain quantities and it’s not documented, which probably means it’s a significant server strain to serve the successful responses. I find I have to maintain a test suite to probe those limits. All this makes REST continue to be appealing if testing the gql load for a service hints at any uncertain limits/instability.

I'm not the OP, but my understanding (and I agree) is that it can seem like a better value when a subset of factors are considered (ones that IT can measure, biases in IT against Apple etc.) and it leads the company into making a choice that is worse for them overall.

I'm drawing a different conclusion than you about that upgrade. Sorry! I definitely understand your advice; it's especially the best option when you are financially risk-adverse or pessimistic about technology but need to participate.