In an honest, well-functioning org, those are decisions made by completely different groups that do not (and should not) report to each other. It's actually kind of depressing that we (and I include myself in that) assume otherwise by default.

I have bad news: most large corporations are successful because they know how to make money. Often, the internal operations, are disappointingly bad, just not bad enough to kill the corp fast.

Source: I've worked in and with many successful organizations, and worked at one place with proper internal processes, so I know what's possible

I have observed that also. Though I'm still not sure whether: 1) there are some small pockets where important decisions are made, innovation happens and the needle is moved, and dysfunction I see is just justified bloat of the company 2) it is the entire corporation like that but it somehow works at the end.

The way I would describe large companies is similar to that joke "Mandatory scheduled fun events" just with innovation. Most large organizations cannot innovate, instead they execute well. Look at all the major large organizations, they primarily distinguish themselves on execution, not innovation. A startup that's hobbled together by passionate soft drink makers (or whatever) aren't gonna come close to full business efficiency of Coke Inc. The manufacturing capacity, distribution channels, the logistics, the brand management and awareness, the brand integration and cross promotion, and other things that come from economy of scale. The rigid structure is not a place for innovation to grow.

>I have bad news: most large corporations are successful because they know how to make money.

Who is they? Do you have any idea what its like working at an org the size of GS, that you actually think these two completely different departments discussed the matter with each other?

I'm no longer in that industry, but as I recall there are actually rules imposing independence from investment banking and research arms, for example. Dates back to the Dot Com era where research analysts were touting IPOs for the investment banking division.

Fairly sure they tore those down last year or a bit before.

In this case, both decisions are weighty enough that they should be made at the very top, by the same people.

Really? You think executives at GS waste their time debating where software should be installed on trading desk computers? They have entire departments dedicated to handling those issues...

Do I expect them to be on top of the technological development impacting them the most since the internet? Yes.

I think that if this wasn't sanctioned by someone at the top then there would be a round of public hanging, drawings and quarterings in the IT department.

What is the Investment Bank version of "flogging round the fleet"?

> In an honest, well-functioning org, those are decisions made by completely different groups that do not (and should not) report to each other.

I don't agree at all. Different groups should be supporting each other and the overall bottom line instead of their parochial, narrow self-interests - the latter is a poorly functioning org.

If by group A delaying its $100M cost-cutting, group B can add $1B to the bottom line, it would be a corporate and group management failure for group A not to cooperate.

An IPO is effectively a funding round, and the numbers we're discussing here are the amount they'll raise from the IPO.

> the numbers we're discussing here are the amount they'll raise from the IPO

No, the "valuation" numbers are the market cap at the moment of IPO. The amount raised is that multiplied by the percentage of shares issued by Anthropic (as opposed to by existing shareholders like investors and employees -- that combined number is the float) at the IPO.

Sorry, yes, that. The bigger point still stands, though — given a fixed fraction of shares they're offering, the valuation gives you the amount raised, and that makes the number interesting.

To me the second response reads more like PR-speak, like somebody who's been over-coached on how to talk to customers.

I find it strange that they'd have an AI-driven followup email days after the survey. If you're automating it, why the delay? "Delay the response so it seems more human" is way too cynical.

It's worth noting that OP is talking about Ocado, too. I've been a client of theirs for over ten years, and the number one reason why I keep buying from them is that their delivery drivers never feel super-hurried. They have lower quotas than drivers for other services, and they always have time for a little bit of banter. Compare that e.g. to Amazon Fresh drivers, who'll always just leave the groceries at the door and knock. They're already gone by the time I open the door.

I find it unlikely that they'd automate this sort of second-level customer support response while not squeezing the everliving shit out of their drivers.

And they’re not alone — mercurial is hg and the silver searcher is ag.

Nvidia doesn't really do B2C. They don't sell graphics cards to consumers, they sell GPUs to OEMs who build cards around them.

They are out of stock right now, but in normal times Nvidia does seem to sell their “founder edition” cards direct to consumer.

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/50-serie...

The "top 20 of 2026" table in the article puts Amazon at $776B, but only 3.75% of that ($29B) attributed to B2C revenue. I don't know whether that number is correct, but AWS is clearly a massive chunk of non-B2C revenue for Amazon.

It's WAY off, lol

> https://bullfincher.io/companies/amazoncom/revenue-by-segmen...

Well over 60% of their revenue is B2C, strictly defined.

60% is online stores. Is that known as B2C?

B2C: Business to Consumer

B2B: Business to Business

Yea thanks, but I know. The question is whether the online store revenue is mainly from consumers or businesses.

Well considering this article counted exactly 100% of Apples revenue as B2C its clearly an inconsistent definition.

Of course.

Source?

The same table also lists Walmart as 5% B2C revenue. There's clearly something wrong here.

In the meantime it counts literally 100% of Apples revenue as B2C. The number quoted is literally 100% of Apples revenue. Which is an 'interesting' discrepancy.

Something is off because obviously Amazon distribution is majority direct to consumer.

> It's clear he brought a gravitas to the role that inspired a team of young/new actors around him

That's a lesson everybody on this site should learn — Every senior is a leader, even if they don't think they are. People (mostly the more junior sorts) look up to you as a role model whether you (or they) know it or not, and that's very real power that you must learn how to wield.

I've given negative reviews to technically excellent candidates in the past because just about everybody in the org would look up to them if they got hired, and they would be a terrible role model.

I read your "senior" in the general "aged human" sense and I think there's value there to.

Until dementia kicks in anyway

Unless, not until.

Dementia is a disease associated with age, not a result of age.

The issue with AI-produced text is rarely bad grammar these days (if anything, that's a marker of human-written text now!), but rather stiff-sounding constructions that humans don't actually use. In this case — semicolons are grammatically correct, but very few people actually use them them (same for em-dashes like what I just used, but you can pry them from my cold, dead fingers).

I absolutely use semicolons when writing professionally. They're just basic parts of grammar, and if you want to be taken seriously by some parts of the world (academia, I'm glaring angrily at you), you would use them.

I guess it comes down to expectations? You don't expect formal conventions from a website writer, while I absolutely do.

I find it interesting that it was a flag for AI writing for you. That's going to make me consider my voice in certain situations now.

I’d expect people writing for a living to understand and use semicolons.

I don’t know anything about the Brazilian legal system. In England and Wales, or in the US, the lawyers are officers of the court, which means they have a duty of candour, and a duty to put the integrity of the legal system above the interests of their clients.

That paragraph was never intended to be read by the judge or opposing counsel, it’s a deliberate attempt at messing with the tools they use to analyse the filing. The fact that it’s white text on a white background makes it an incontrovertible attempt at deceit.

We can discuss how wise it is to use AI to analyse legal documents for you, but that doesn’t change how outright deceit should be handled by the court.

Lawyer here (Sri Lanka). Our responsibilites are similar to the UK--your duty as an officer of court comes first. Attempting to subvert court processes this way would result in sanctions, if not outright disbarment.

In EU continental law countries, while lawyers are often not seen as officers of the court (that's a common law thing), they are still seen as cog ("participants") in the justice system, so a kind of elevated cooperation requirement is expected from lawyers compared to laypeople. And any such attempt like this with these Brazilian guys would probably result in being disbarred or something very close to it. And that should be expected and normal - you should not have any special rights in the justice system as being a lawyer if you're trying to abuse that and not play by those rules. The measures are markedly different between countries. Like, in England, if your client would be lying to the court (like under oath) and you, as a lawyer, knows about that, they expect you to decline to represent the client. And if you're not, you'll be in breach of the Code of Conduct and will face disciplinary measures. See 1.4 of https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code... This means being an officer of the court. But that's not the case in Hungary. In a criminal case, the lawyer has to represent whatever the client tells the lawyer to do so, even if that's doubtful: "8.12. In the performance of their duties, a defense attorney must not take a position that contradicts their client’s account of the facts. Even where the client denies the allegations, the attorney must not engage in any conduct that might create the impression that they harbor doubts regarding the absence of their client’s criminal liability, or that might suggest the defendant’s guilt." So, what it means to be a lawyer is quite different from country to country, but this kind of conduct made by the guys in this case goes against granting lawyers any special rights in any jurisdiction, so should normally not be allowed.

However there is some other civil law jurisdictions that imported the officer of the court principle from common law.

Hypothetically, how would that apply to a litigant in person?

The same, I expect?

A judge might be a little more lenient with procedural mistakes to a pro se litigant who's trying to comply with the spirit of the proceedings, but smartarses won't get any such luck. At best they'll get a sternly worded warning the first time they get "creative".

Frankly I am surprised they were not disbarred.

it's pretty rare for a bar would sanction its members.

Bars sanction misbehaving members regularly and publish these sanctions to their websites.

A better framing is that security has largely been built on theory that most targets aren't worth the effort to target, so security spending is focused on preventing/mitigating untargeted spray-and-pray attacks.