It sucks that Zuck doesn't pay the taxes himself, and that Meta did it for him. But this is way less worse than the likely alternative of him not paying any taxes given it current political situation.
He is in fact going to pay the taxes himself, in the sense that they will come out of his net worth, not Meta's market cap. The significance of this deal is that it allows him to retain voting control of Meta after doing so, which might not otherwise have been possible. The current HN submission title is wildly misleading and I'm asking the moderators to change it (it's not from the original source).
I think most people don't mind paying for software, they just mind situations like having to rent software forever (subscriptions), or software companies being ran by people who are only focused on increasing revenue at the expense of actual making good/better software.
I think subscriptions are fair if you want updates, which for anything security related you do. The alternative (from decades ago) is to re-buy it every few years.
This isn't about cost. If these projects, like bitwarden, were run at cost the price would be negligible. Instead you see software companies with like 80% margins (or even higher). Not to mention that if the price was reduced to near cost then you'd get more users which would even further decrease the cost.
I’m not sure why people focus so much on costs as a driver of prices. They provide a floor on prices (past which it’s unprofitable). But prices are set based on demand and competition. And here there is no “lock in” or monopoly, it’s fairly easy to move between several password managers.
I was really interested in this when it first came out years ago. I was also a heavy social media user and it was amazing to have a tool that allowed you to own your data and then share with various other closed social media platforms as or if you like. This idea is still amazing today, although I've lost interest in social media platforms generally (so don't have as much of a need for this awesome tool).
I agree with this statement. Kimi K2.5 is at least as good as the best closed source models today for my purposes. I've switched from Claude Code w/ Opus 4.5 to OpenCode w/ Kimi K2.5 provided by Fireworks AI. I never run into time-based limits, whereas before I was running into daily/hourly/weekly/monthly limits all the time. And I'm paying a fraction of what Anthropic was charging (from well over $100 per month to less than $50 per month).
Beyond agree. Was spending crazy amounts on Claude and it was sporadic at best. Some moments, Opus was a rockstar, others, it couldn’t solve the simplest of problems. Switched to Kimi K2.5 and honestly didn’t think it would do anything other than destroy my code. Crazy enough, it solved the problem I had in less than 60 seconds and I was hooked. Not to say it doesn’t have issues, it does, started repeating itself over and over, forgets things after so much context, etc, though it writes damn good code when it does work properly and for an absolute fraction of the price Anthropic charges.
Saw you wrote that you moved away from Opus 4.5. If you haven’t tried Opus 4.6, there’s only one number different in the name, but the common experience is it’s significantly better.
Anecdotally, I've cancelled my Claude Code subscription after using Kimi K2.5 and Kimi CLI for the last few days. It's handled everything I've thrown at it. It is slower at the moment, but I expect that will improve.
This is probably snark, but to give a clear answer: no. Owners of a company technically "own" the debt in the sense of a balance sheet, but are not liable for it. If you buy a share of stock and the company goes into liquidation, no one can come after you for its debts. What happens is that the creditors all get in line in bankruptcy court and the arbitrator decides who gets how much of whatever is left.
reply