I got LinkedIn notifications for both Anthropic and OpenAI with my exact job description, but at 3-4x the pay. I said hell no. They would want me to actually work. The job I have now is easy. Plus, they're slated for mass layoffs when the market realigns. I work a gov job that's protected from market layoffs and the security of that is too good to give up.
They’re not really, it’s just the YC hype cycle. The business is selling insurance to other YC startups with some AI flair. They’re not even the first YC startup to do this, a previous YC insurance startup was acquired a few years ago for ~$1bn. So, they’re worth 3x the exit of the exact same company… because of what, AI? The fact that they’re cloning other software to release SaaS products is extremely bearish. Why are they wasting their time on this? A wildly successful $3bn startup would not spend their precious resources by launching a $10/m document sending SaaS. They’ll be doing down rounds soon enough. Could you imagine Paul Graham encouraging this?
A big part of the US VC operating model these days seems to be just rebuilding existing products with slight changes, then pushing all of their other startups to use that version of it. This is only going to accelerate with AI. Why pay some company you don't own to do thing for you, when you can just copy the company (maybe even improve it in some ways), seed it with with your large existing user base, then have it do the thing for you (while also generating profit from other customers and rapidly scaling in users and valuation itself).
The reality is most of what most tech startups are doing is not actually hard and has no moat. The moat is in getting users/customers - connections/marketing/sales - product quality also matters of course, but there are plenty hyperscaler unicorns who's product is dogshit and vice versa.
Listened to the founder on 20VC episode talk endlessly about sleeping and showering in the office and comparing their insurance company to Alexander the Great and Napoleon.
Silicon Valley is just so disconnected from reality.
Would pay good money to see Silicon Valley complete their disconnection from reality and drift off into the void. The rest of us would get some semblance of normality back if they did.
Also, I should add, they’re growing fast because they will underwrite anyone for anything. They’re one “oops our AI underwriting has been taking on far too much risk” away from disaster. That they’re demanding 7 days a week from their employees while spending their time building a dataroom product instead of, I don’t know, improving their underwriting, is a bad sign.
Normally getting insurance from a startup like Corgi would be a very bad idea because what’s to say they’ll be able to pay out claims? I assume other YC startups are happy because a) they can’t get insurance anywhere with good underwriting b) they figure YC will bail Corgi out when it goes wrong because seemingly every YC startup depends on them.
“Policyholders should be aware that certain Specialty Insurance Carriers may not be admitted insurers in the state in which the insured risk is located. Policies issued by non-admitted insurers, risk retention groups, captive insurers, and certain other Specialty Insurance Carriers may not be subject to all of the insurance laws and regulations of your state. State insurance insolvency guaranty funds may not be available for policies issued by non-admitted insurers, risk retention groups, captive insurance companies, offshore insurers, or other non-admitted Specialty Insurance Carriers. In the event of the insolvency of such a carrier, policyholders may not have access to state guaranty fund protection and may bear the risk of the carrier's inability to pay claims.”
If this is the scenario, it's no wonder they're underwriting everyone & everything, and can do this competitively, because a broker would need to find either enough new clients and/or efficiencies to justify being the middleman between the customer and the actual insurer. That's typically been the strategy of every financial tech company; I don't see any secret sauce with Corgi beyond "'cause AI!". Move fast and break things is not what I'd want in my insurance company.
Lmao tech money is fake. Look at how much AI companies are throwing around. Musk is personally worth 1T now supposedly.
It's all virtual valuations. The stock market is poison but most people on here won't admit to that because they have their own interests in it. What a joke our species is lmao. We're still grabbing big sticks to hit each other with and worrying about our neighbors coming to take our rocks because we're all just monkeys still, even though we pretend we're not.
I remember having to do this with icomoon back in the day when icon fonts were all the rage because svg support in ie11 was lacking and downloading the entirety of font awesome was a huge payload hit.
Only slightly related, but I have been using Oban as a Postgres native message queue in the elixir ecosystem and loving it.
For my use case, it’s so much simpler than spinning up another piece of infrastructure like Kafka or rabbitmq
For macOS, 8K should have a larger screen. This 8K monitor is 32 inches, which leaves us with a very awkward 275ppi. 42" would be 209ppi, which is great for 16.5" from your face. 48" would be 183ppi, which is great for 18.8" from your face (my preference). But at 32" and 275dpi, that would be a 12.5" viewing distance, which is far too close for a 32" monitor. You'd be constantly moving your neck to see much of the screen--or wasting visual acuity by having it further.
macOS is optimized for PPIs at the sweet spot in which Asus's 5K 27" (PA27JCV) and 6K 32" (PA32QCV) monitors sit. Asus seemed to be one of the few manufacturers that understand a 27" monitor should be 5K (217ppi), not 4K (163ppi). 4K will show you pixels at most common distances. But if you follow that same 217ppi up to 8K, that leads to 40.5" not 32".
My wife has a triple vertical PA27JCV setup and it's amazing. I've been able to borrow it for short stints, and it's nearly everything I've ever wanted from a productivity monitor setup.
What is the right size for 4K monitor and the distance from our eyes?
I have Skyworth monitor at 27" already. If I set macos resolution at 4K, the default font is too small. My distance with the monitor is around 16,5".
My personal preference is 24" nominal for 4K (a 23.8" 4K display has 185ppi), running at @2x (1080p equivalent), because I keep my monitors a bit further back on my desk than others do. I run a triple Dell P2415Q setup. It was great when I started, but as more websites assume 1080 CSS pixels of width means I want tablet mode, its utility has decayed. Because of that I've gone from 3 vertical to 1 horizontal flanked by 2 vertical. These aren't made anymore, and for years nobody else was making monitors at this density. It seems they've become popular again since COVID, and ViewSonic even released the VP2488-4K this year, complete with Thunderbolt 4 and DCI-P3. Asus's offering at this size & resolution is the PA24US.
Another great option is 22" nominal (a 21.5" 4K display has 204ppi), also running at @2x. This is better if you keep the monitor closer to the keyboard side of your desk, or if your desk is not very deep. These are hard to find, and even when you do they're likely to be a portable monitor. Asus has a page for a PQ22UC but I can't tell if it is no longer available, or no longer sold in the US.
I recently (a couple of weeks ago) got the 6K version of this screen, the Asus PA32QCV. It has the same pixel density as my MacBook Pro, so the UI looks great. To be honest, it's enough screen real estate that I now operate with my laptop in clam shell mode.
My only complaint is that the KVM leaves a bit to be desired. One input can be Thunderbolt, but the other has to be HDMI/DisplayPort. That means I need to use a USB-C cable for real KVM when switching between my two laptops. I'd like two cables, but four cables isn't the end of the world.
You can scale the UI according to your preferences, but the real problem is that if your monitor’s ppi is not close to the macOS sweet spot of 220ppi (or an integer multiple thereof) you’re going to have aliasing issues with text and other high contrast elements.
You can run it natively, but it is better to downscale to 4k or 1080p. I run three 5k versions of this monitor and they are all downscaled to 1440p. I get 1:1 pixel mapping so text looks crisp in every app except Microsoft Teams.
I think this is a good case for applying Hanlon's Razor. The person that did the forking and removal of copyright text may simply not know that it needed to stay there.
I would love to know what processes MS is considering to prevent this in the future as well as what kind of auditing might be done to look at other projects that started as forks.
There are other possibilities, for example, the person may have thought that they were complying with the MIT licence by releasing the new project under the MIT licence too + including a mention of the original project in the README.
This, of course, is incorrect, and a cursory read of the very short licence text would show it to be incorrect.
Hanlon's razor can indicate an absence of malice, but that doesn't mean what they did wasn't wrong, nor should Microsoft skimp on taking steps so it never happens again.
I agree on both points, and with the earlier comment:
> I would love to know what processes MS is considering to prevent this in the future as well as what kind of auditing might be done to look at other projects that started as forks.
In response to:
> ... going to make sure we improve our processes to help us be better stewards in the open-source community.
Most software developers I know have no clue how open source licences work.
Hell, I have been reading a lot about them (including the licences themselves and stuff like the GPL FAQ) many times, and in situations like this it's still not entirely clear to me what Microsoft should do (surely there are different valid ways to handle this).
Would you consider yourself competent as a lawyer regarding open source licences? If not, can I say that "you apparently never learned it" and aren't better than the rest of us?
Compliance here is simple — preserve the original license and copyright.
This isn’t complicated, but if you truly don’t understand it then you should speak to a lawyer before incorporating someone else’s code into your or your employer’s project.
Ignorance is not a surprise or a fault. Anyone choosing to act from ignorance very much is.
I reiterate that this is not complicated. If you still find it complicated, then you need to speak to an attorney or someone else qualified to give you direction before attempting to use someone else’s code.
We have been doing this for nearly 60 years. Correct examples abound if you’re willing to do basic research.
That’s willful ignorance at this point, and they shouldn’t be incorporating open source code into their projects without speaking to an attorney or someone otherwise qualified to answer their questions.
It wouldn't be surprising to me if an expert Leetcoder simply copy/pasted the code, knowing nothing of licensing. What would surprise me though is the engineering team not having at least one open source expert that didn't intervene.
reply