* by "airgapped" we mean we asked it pretty please to only use the wifi.

What I've heard is a market cap well north of a trillion dollars is expected.

Yes. As I said, market cap or "valued at" doesn't mean that's how much money people put in.

It is losing money combined with being a commodity + rapid obsolescence that seems strange to me.

Then don't buy shares. Anthropic is making an offer, which you can accept, or not. I certainly won't be. There are lots of good general reasons why you should never buy an IPO, especially as an individual investor. I'm not sure what's strange about it though. Lots of successful companies deal in commodities, including perishable ones, from whoever you buy your food from to Facebook and Microsoft.

In June, over $500,000 worth of bourbon was stolen out from under the nose of a warehouse in Phildelphia. The first paragraph:

Later in the story, the explanation for how this happened is nearly identical to these tech thefts:

Newman said investigators believe the theft may be tied to a "complex ring" targeting high-value consumer products. The perpetrators appeared to impersonate an existing trucking company, using a company name, phone number and other details to gain trust and secure the load, he said.

"They basically try and look like, sound like ⦠a legitimate trucking company," Newman said. "They spoof the company name, they spoof the trucking dispatcher."

In the company's news release, it said the theft appeared to have been carried out with knowledge of "logistics operations and product movement schedules," suggesting planning and coordination.

Billions, not trillions. Two trillion is what you get when you multiply the hypothetical share price by the number of shares. They'll just sell a small fraction of them.

And yes, people do it all the time. Notable examples include Amazon, Uber, etc. Most American companies are not profitable at IPO:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

New trend? The venture capital business model has always been to fund startups, bring the rare successful one to IPO and then cash out.

I'm addressing the larger over-reliance on homework, that's why the reference to children.

You're trying to talk about a general problem by using language specific to a subset that is not under discussion. Yeah, sure.

It's for practice. Using homework for testing has always been a mediocre to dumb idea.

Hey, Nancy Reagan, glad to see you're still around!

I guess the old war on drugs thing was getting old so it's time for the new boogeyman?

In another company, the employee could *apply* for the voluntary exit, but management reserved the right to decline to accept in 'special circumstances'.

There was a lot of pressure to accept of course, but they did cover the scenario of making sure they can keep someone if they thought they could not afford it.

The key is that either way, the severance is the same. When my company last did a voluntary buyout, it was more than the standard severance to sweeten the pot. If it is equal to severance, then people would be inclined to stick it out unless they *really* were looking to leave anyway.

If you stick it out, you get normal pay until the layoffs actually happen, and if you are so unlucky to be out of work for over 39 weeks, then you can start the UI checks to get that once the severance 'runs out'.

I'll broadly agree that self-hosting even when easy is skipped by most people, but funny to use email as the shining example of a relatively easy thing to self-host, that's one of the messiest things to try to self-host. But it is easy to point out that the vast bulk of AWS/Azure business is 'stuff people don't bother to self-host' and I know a lot of folks that would rather open a web hosted paint application than just start an already installed paint application.

I do think that the 'pure AI' companies are vulnerable to being rolled over in the long term by the likes of Microsoft, Apple, and Google. The companies that in various ways control the 'onramps' to this sort of tech (e.g. my company exclusively gives money to Microsoft for access to the models, because that's what they are used to doing for so much other spend).

So the private investors will fuel profit taking with IPO sell-off and the debt load may result in the company going bankrupt and the pieces being picked up by an older tech company.

AI can definitely be useful for writing code but you need to give it very clear prompts and properly verify that the code it wrote is correct and accurate.

As for my own code, considering that the stuff I am working on at this point (personal projects, not paid work) relies on a bunch of reference materials where feeding that stuff into an AI would probably violate various NDAs 6 ways from Sunday, the answer is no, an AI bot probably can't write the code I am currently working on.

It's amazing to me that with access to the world's knowledge people will just write shit, then, when corrected, insist on it, without bothering to check. Anonymity is a powerful thing I guess.

Here, I copied the link to the Artemis program outline for you:

https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in...

One of the most obnoxious things about AI advocates is that they are awfully opinionated on my specific work even if they don't know what my specific work even is. So they see it working well in some areas and when I express a nuanced experience that isn't a slam dunk except in certain situations, they are disdainful that I am not all-in.

One concrete example, some guy who has never written or managed code (not even vibe coding), asked if I used git and I said sure, and he informed me that I should change to something that was more AI native based on what he had read online. People reading random tech articles are once again trying to "help" people that get to read the same articles, but without actual experience one way or another. At least the ones that have successful vibe coding have a leg to stand on, but still oversimplifying a very nuanced domain to a boolean 'ai can do all of it it: yes/no' is obnoxious

I doubt that. They may have wondered if it was *worth* the price of the computers at the time, but they were not debating the capabilities.

That facet certainly exists here about token pricing and how it will evolve and in a larger sense about whether it is worth the footprint, and there's every possibility that those concerns will ease with time like they did for computers doing calculations.

The issue here is that folks are treating software development as a monolithic thing. Even very milquetoast software development demanded skill and tedium, but GenAI can chew through the milquetoast scenarios adequately if you are careful and know what you are doing. People who live in that realm then seem to get the mindset that reality applies to the entire domain of software development equally. We have a much more weird subjective results than computers being able to calculate.