Ha, resonates for me. I wonder if a solution is to pitch the APIs (or an MCP) to customers at the same cost as cloud solution and tell them to vibecode away on top of it. I guess that's IaaS.
Just another 80s trekker passing along a hello. I had the same experience as you describe nearing the top of Kala Patthar. Trekked outside of Pokhara too but did not do the circuit. Maybe we passed along the trail though ;)
The comments on early Google circulating value resonate. As a web developer then it was great to add free Google services that enhanced my site/shared revenue (e.g site search, adsense, maps, analytics, etc). It's what I see really lacking in OpenAI's centralized approach. They've extracted all my old site data for their use but have offered no complementary value in return. Which is what this article speaks to in part.
Disagree, in the U.S. the original by Johnny Nash reached number 1 on the Billboard chart while the cover version by Cliff only reached #18. While chart position is not the ultimate determination of "better", I also personally have always liked the Nash version, I didn't even know Cliff did a cover until today.
Along these lines I wonder how many people have been able to do triathlons for multiple decades (started in their 20s and still doing in 60s). This impressive woman started late and wondering if that gave her an advantage relative to joint stress...i.e. if you only get so many years
A skunkworks shop that aims at 100x returns by producing cutting-edge AI tech, not another B2B BigTech company. Isn't that the very image they cultivated in the media?
IIRC, the pitch was AGI would allow OpenAI to print money by replacing humans in any industry and siphoning whatever was being spent on payroll for pennies on the dollar.
If you can produce cutting edge AI tech, the opportunity cost is just too high to spend $1B on already established companies. Such acquisitions basically say that OpenAI can’t find a project worthy of $1B of compute and exceptional AI researchers either because there is nothing innovative they believe they can come up with or because anything innovative will be commoditized and produce little returns.
They sell ads. For people to look at ads they need to grab their attention. So they have an ad network, a social media platform, a microblogging platform, a short-form media sharing platform, a messenger, VR SW, VR HW, smart glasses, LLMs, a marketplace, a dating service, a street imagery service, a fitness service, some B2B stuff and so on.
"Can you call Meta diversified given most of its forward looking revenue comes from IG? Lol."
Meta's long term value, as it stands, seemingly comes predominantly from IG given that the probability of success of those things you mentioned are very low and FB is on its last legs in the developed world.
Meta is highly concentrated on IG. And how do we know this? Well Meta's revenues were beat recently by Bytedance. What is Bytedances premier App?
It's optimized for the seller. The sales person that can actually determine good fit/bad fit can't also be making 100 calls a day. The BDR making 100 calls a day cannot determine good fit/bad fit on their own on the first call.
It all started with Evel K. in the 70s I think. We'd see him on Wide World of Sports, get his cycle jumping toy as presents, etc. Everyone started building wooden ramps to emulate Evel. It was actually a lot of fun so long as you didn't add too much speed or ramp height.
In the photos I see the transition from the "high rise" bicycle to the "BMX" bike. While somewhat cool looking, the BMX bikes, for me it was also the end of an era — my era — for biking. Instead of BMX bikes I moved instead on to 10-speed road bikes (later 12 speed ... now 1000 speed or whatever they're up to).
The photos also shows a time when wearing a helmet was not a thing. That did come shortly after (I mean at the time of these photos, I don't think you could even go to a Sears or wherever and buy a "bike helmet". After a rather nasty spill I had riding to work one morning, I became a helmet convert.
