"Hire" an unfortunately ironic typo!

I think this sucks for the people being laid off but what exactly should they be held accountable for?

It's not like over-hiring or laying people off is a crime. The employees presumably knew the deal going in (that they could be laid off). They got compensated for the time they worked.

No one owed them a job at Oracle in the first place. (Again, not to diminish how bad it feels / shocking it can be to be laid off!)

If I am bad at my job, I get fired. For better or worse, this is what happens.

If a CEO is bad at his or her job (e.g. wasting billions of dollars on employees that they don't need), apparently he or she can fire 20% of the company and give himself a bonus for making such a tough decision.

> what exactly should they be held accountable for?

Bad leadership. Costing the company a ton of money and goodwill. Need I go on?

The wasted cashed is only part of the story.

Just think of the wasted man hours spent on integrating 30K new employees that supposedly the company didn't need. The time spent in meetings about restructuring departments, new points of contacts, reassignment of duties, figuring out who to promote, training the new hires, etc.

Now the company gets to it all again in reverse with much lower moral and excitement. The amount of hours & employee focus wasted on the bureaucracy of the hiring and firing over 30K employees instead of spending that time on improving the business should get you fired from leadership.

> Just think of the wasted man hours...

That's all money.

I view the opportunely cost, moral reduction, corporate politics, etc. differently then just money. I wanted to emphasize the long term effects of hiring then firing 30K has on businesses beyond what people typically focus on like payroll.

> but what exactly should they be held accountable for?

For over hiring 30K people.

They aren't suggesting a criminal or moral failure, just being bad at their job.

making wrong decisions at work has no consequences for you? where do you work?

Tech shareholders want executives to take risks building new products. Of course they’d prefer the products be successful but if the options are “hire 30k people 50% chance we have to lay them all off” or “don’t build new products” most tech shareholders want option 1.

where do you pull 50 percent number for oracle?

Even if the number is 10% they want the company to take risks. Big tech shareholders number one goal is not becoming IBM

anyone can get any random shower thought funded by this logic. Thats not how investing works.

I mean, as an outsider, this is exactly how it seems to be working.

Then why dont executives got punished by investors when they take risks and fail? The answer clearly is that investors want the risks to be taken and understand the downside that comes from taking risks.

> Then why dont executives got punished by investors when they take risks and fail?

they do?

Politics.

Labor is a commodity. You don’t apologize to the commodity for changing your spending habits and walking past it in the store.

Funny thought, but this is just the client-side CLI...

It's honestly not a crazy thought. The model itself drives the harness's (cli) development. It's not necessarily sci-fi to think the model might have internally rationalized reasoning to obscure behavior that ended up open-sourcing the harness.

I would say not all that ironic. Book publishers, Reddit, Stackoverflow, etc., tried their best to attract customers while not letting others steal their work. Now Anthropic is doing the same.

Unfortunately (for the publishers, at least) it didn't work to stop Anthropic and Anthropic's attempts to prevent others will not work either; there has been much distillation already.

The problem of letting humans read your work but not bots is just impossible to solve perfectly. The more you restrict bots, the more you end up restricting humans, and those humans will go use a competitor when they become pissed off.

It's really just tech culture like HN that obsesses over solving problems perfectly. From seat belts to DRM to deodorant, most of the world is satisfied with mitigating problems.

There are myriad providers competing to offer this, nicely packaged with all the accoutrements (IP rotation, location spoofing, language settings, prebuilt parsers, etc.) behind an easy to use API.

Honestly it is a very healthy competitive market with reasonably low switching costs which drives prices down. These circumstances make rolling your own a tough sell.

I disagree, a browser can have javascript execution disabled (and this is somewhat common in scraping to save time/resources).

I read it to mean: "A browser that doesn't execute the JavaScript bundle won't have [the rendered React elements]." Which is true.

Wouldn't a browser that doesn't execute JS also not execute the browser fingerprinting code in the first place?

If JavaScript is disabled, why use a headless browser instead of making HTTP requests directly?

People regularly pay for software that runs on their machine.

I bet that most of their revenue doesn't come from people who want to bet big!

If only there were some kind of market where we could materialise our bets...

You don't think Apple would suffer any reputational damage if they deleted millions of peoples cherished memories and important work notes/emails?

Also there would be many lawsuits arising from this.

Millions of people stay on Apple's happy path.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few out there who have gotten their Apple account restricted for whatever reason, and didn't have the clout, energy, or mental bandwidth to pursue it loudly and publicly.

OK but most liars don’t fabricate an entire story.

In the startup world they might claim to have 1.5x the rev they have, or that an impressive logo is trialling their product when really they’re in early talks, etc…

Then it’s much easier to tell the “truth” with one twist and these methods fail.