ibeckermayer
But the real kicker here is the 90s ttft, that means you ask a question and don't see anything for a full minute and a half.
It's a good question, what I think you're missing is that if the market is valuing me (NVIDIA) at 25x revenue then it's more like I traded you (OpenAI) a GPU it cost me $80 to make for $100 worth of OpenAI stock, and I got a bonus $2500 in market cap of my own stock (which existing shareholders like).
IOW for every incremental "$100" in revenue (circular or otherwise), existing shareholders get paid "$2500" in equity (NVIDIA appreciation + OpenAI shares).
This "works" for NVIDIA and its shareholders as long as they/the market keeps thinking $100 of OpenAI stock is a good price for a GPU. If OpenAI tangibly fails to deliver on this valuation then NVIDIA may wind up in the red on these deals.
Caveat: it's a bit more complicated than that as OpenAI doesn't typically buy/operate GPUs directly afaict, rather they team up with the big cloud providers like AMZN (also part of the deal). But it's an useful way to wrap your head around the economics, I think (open to correction, not a domain of professional expertise).
I don't see anything _inherently_ unethical about this as some comments seem to imply. It's definitely riskier than accepting cash, in which case you're free not to play, but it's a calculated risk based on future expectations of growth by OpenAI. Granted there are some sketchy incentives qua existing shareholders that could materialize in pump and dump dynamics.
2. GPL does not allow you to take the code, compress it in your latent space, and then sell that to consumers without open sourcing your code.
The technical details are beyond my understanding but I’ve heard from a PhD in the field that Masterjohn’s understanding of metabolism is second to none. Whether his protocols work or not is certainly a case by case matter (like any health protocol), but he always appears to substantiate it with well-cited lines of argument, and is willing to engage with interlocutors.
As for spending years with changing protocols without getting anywhere besides spending lots of money, well that can be said for people with complex issues who go the institutionally approved route as well. It isn’t discrediting in its own right that a protocol didn’t work for some.
(No affiliation, just have been subscribed to the founder’s substack for a while)
All you need to do is walk down almost any street in San Francisco and take a secondary glance at the homeless people you see, and its obvious that "can't afford a home" is just one of their many problems. Most of these people couldn't hold a job because they're addicted to really hardcore drugs (you might even get an opportunity to watch them smoke or inject some during this secondary glance), and often severely mentally ill. "Homeless" is to a great extent besides the point, this is a mental illness / drug addiction problem.
Even if you could find a solid place for $800/mo in SF, these people wouldn't be in it because the vast majority of them are unfit for employment. If that was really the issue then we could solve all this by just sending them to Omaha.
Good luck building a competitive direct messaging client without “spam spamifications”.
PWAs aren’t ideal, but building to a single platform with different screen sizes is far more efficient and achievable for upstarts than building multiple separate apps in different languages targeting multiple platforms. Arbitrarily limiting features like “spam spamifications” just gives an arbitrary advantage to the well funded over the independent and bootstrapped.
The tool itself is open core: https://github.com/gravitational/teleport
Most of the desktop access stuff is open source. (The only desktop related thing that's proprietary is our tool that allows for access to machines not connected to Active Directory). A sizeable chunk of the desktop access code is even Written In Rust™: https://github.com/gravitational/teleport/tree/master/lib/sr...!
Fair. The bait and switch could be avoided by grandfathering in current orgs. A more hands-off, related idea is that you could come up with an unenforced, suggested payment. Essentially consider what an ideal economically sustainable licensing system would look like, and publish that as a suggested donation.
> We've always aimed to avoid Matrix being pay-to-play (e.g. eschewing tokenisation schemes).
I agree with eschewing pay-to-play or plopping some half-assed crypto grift on top (or what some would call a "tokenization scheme"). I would dispute characterizing my suggestion as pay-to-play, as payment wouldn't be required to use the system. It should be totally up to the user how much to set their bounty at, including zero if they're willing to accept the greater amount of spam (or wish to use some other spam filtering method). The idea here isn't for anybody to make any money off of getting messages (the money would just be returned if the receiver accepted the message as non-spam), it's just to make large scale spammers lose money.
> Instead, the angle we've taken has been to let users publish and subscribe to reputation feeds (a bit like email DNSBLs, but more transparent and less of a shakedown) in order to empower users to block stuff they don't want to see.
That makes sense as a feature generally, although I think its solving for a different sort of problem. The blocklist seems like it would work best for allowing users to cultivate a particular culture (i.e. subscribe to a blocklist for those who use excessive profanity, or talk about certain undesired topics, etc.). But a "Nigerian prince" style spammer can make new accounts and blast out messages faster than you can identify and add them to a blocklist. However if it on-average costs that spammer $2 per message that they're unlikely to get back, it suddenly becomes prohibitively expensive to engage in that type of behavior.
> But perhaps one could combine the two ideas: you could have a personal rep list which users pay to be on, and you get the payment if they turn out to be spammers - similar to systems like https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20181023-people-pay-20-....
Hmm, that's an interesting modification. I'll need to chew more on the incentives. I would say the approach in that article is closer to my original suggestion, except instead of the money actually going to charity it would just go back to the sender once the author replied to their message.
> Much like email, i'm not sure these semantics should be baked into the protocol itself. (But the infrastructure to support it could be - thus MSC2313: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/blob/msc...)
When I look at that proposal, it seems to me like it's "baked into the protocol itself" insofar as its proposing how to use existing room primitives (namely state events) to implement the concept.
1) Have you guys considered changing the licensing to require larger organizations to contribute financially to the protocol? Permissive open source licensing is great for allowing small upstarts (i.e. individuals like me) to build off of and contribute to development without institutional scale funding. However the virtues of the system become hazy when organizations with gigantic budgets come into the fold and begin essentially parasitizing off your work, despite clearly having the resources to contribute. I'd like to live in a culture where sound moral and economic judgement ruled the day, however based on my experience with the current open source company that I work for (https://goteleport.com) and the similar experience detailed in your funding post, it seems that we simply don't live in such a world. IMO the Open Source world should be considering moving to a Source Available model which looks to maintain the innovation/security benefits of Open Source, while experimenting with a greater variety of license enforced models such that larger players are required to contribute financially. Juce is one example of a project that works something like what I'm imagining (https://juce.com/get-juce), Unreal is another model (https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/faq).
2) As Matrix grows, it seems inevitable that it will fall victim to the spam problems well known with email. My current understanding is that this spam problem is essentially what's pushed email into becoming a de facto centralized protocol wherein its extremely difficult/impractical for independent operators to enter the ecosystem (without large scale financial backing) -- Big co's have developed a notoriously finicky and unaccountable IP-based reputation system which often causes opaque deliverability issues for individuals who try to run their own servers, resulting in many just throwing in the towel and going with a big email provider that can guarantee high-reputation IPs. Based on the Matrix Foundation's stated values, I wouldn't imagine you guys intentionally using the popularity of the matrix.org homeserver to build a similar sort of system, however since Matrix represents a relative clean slate to address this problem in a way that needn't rely so centrally on trust in a single organization, I'm curious on your thoughts on the following:
There's an idea out in the ether of solving spam by allowing users to set a bounty to send them a message, which is returned to the sender if the user accepts the message as non-spam. So for example, I could set my personal bounty at $2, and if anybody not in my contact list wants to send me a message, they need to include $2. When I accept the message, that $2 goes back to them, but if I don't then I keep it. That way it becomes prohibitively expensive for spammers and scammers to engage in non-targeted spam/scam campaigns, while still keeping it relatively cheap for individuals to i.e. send a message to a public figure they don't know, and free to message a new friend who they're sure will return the bounty.
1) Twitter censorship often took place at the discretion of employees, including Yoel Roth
2) The FBI was in consistent contact with Roth and co, directing them on which topics and individuals to censor
3) the CIA also had representatives who met with Twitter to help arrange censorship.
Best to catch up on the latest breaking news before wading into these discussions. Im sure you’d agree that mis, dis, and malinformation are extremely dangerous to our democracy!
See the ultimate example in Yoel Roth (PhD in woke nonsense) acting as the stick-up-the-ass hall monitor for our entire civilization.