Same here. I saw it and didn't really care for it at first, but after using the blink feature on that site, I kinda think I like it better than Jetbrains. I may have to give it a a try. That site is really cool.
I noticed how easy it is to frame something online when you’re viewing it out of context. I’ve seen myself getting it wrong from time to time, because a title was misleading, and I don’t know why after 30 years of internet I’m not way more skeptical.
> you might find the quality subpar, but in terms of cost ratio, it is commercially good enough. Business will accept 99.99 at fraction of cost of 99.999.
Personally, based on over a decade of professional software engineering experience at all sort of organisations, from small startups, Government, big tech, financial services of all scale.
In terms of literature, you can look into "enshiftication" as a starting point into research around cost savings and value extraction in business.
Also, about 7 years ago, I had some ideas about how AI will pan out, and here is the releveant excerpt from it:
> [S]oftware development industry, the very workhorse of automation and tools of efficiency is eating itself away. The outward image may look very different with the software development becoming an integral part of more and more industries, yet, the number of developers required for a project of given complexity is reducing at unimaginable rate.
It is helpful not to make unbecoming remarks. I know it is hard times for a lot of people in tech but it is important to remain mindful and separate your disagreement with the message from the messenger.
Despite your very poor remark in a sibling comment, I will respond with benefit of the doubt that you're just unhappy with the message and don't intend to be a prick.
You ask how are the numbers derived? Well, the numbers are not derived. My point is that an equilibrium exists where business is happy to pay y/x for 99.99 instead of y for 99.999; what is the actual value of x depends on specific enterprise and markets. What we know is that such x is no longer long term, let alone a theoretical proposition, but something approachable in the short term.
So to answer your question. The numbers are not derived.
It serves to aggrandize whatever softer basis might actually exist for the conclusion. Whether that's deliberate or the result of thoughtless use of useless platitudes, it's done with a disregard for honesty.
It is distasteful to make such accusations. Specially when the author has specifically left out the calculation and merely suggests of a “fraction” which is to be discovered with time.
It's not the only aggrandizing element of the blurb. The whole thing is baseless prediction presented as though it's hard truth, which is either deliberately dishonest or unconcerned with whether it's honest. If it's tasteless to point that out, I'll happily be crass about it.
It is based on Anthropic Uptimes. If anthropic wanted 99.999 they will have to acquire 10 times more GPUs/infra to match the traditional free resources of 99.999 services.
Now that there are many models on par for most day to day coding tasks, I think this will prove to be a complete fallacy. If anything, since LLMs, my tolerance for bad software has gone down.
Example- I'm no longer a Claude subscriber, but in the past it was the only game in town. Not any more: I'm simply done dealing with the countless issues in their client. With Pi, I'm no longer sitting there like an idiot slamming the enter key because ask_user_questions is broken again and I have to force quit the application (just to mention one of the countless issues). Hoping my org switches away from Claude too...
I mean, can't you just look around? Also from a business standpoint it just makes sense. Diminishing returns on product quality has been known for a long time. Look at Displays for instance. A set number of dead pixels is seen as okay, not because it is okay, but because the cost increase to have no dead pixels is extremely high.
Such a cute read (I mean that in the best way possible). I'm quite a social person and it's really cool to see someone be so systemic about it. But I would not have the balls to just talk to random people in the way you did it, and I really admire that about you!
Totally agree with this. Blizzard nowadays is a giant, but nobody would have blamed them if they remained a small studio, trying to protect what they've worked hard for to create. Just because they have a lot of money now, doesn't legally change a thing. It sucks because Blizzard has become a shitty company, and I'd like these types of devs from Turtle WoW to be able to continue their work, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
