Well, they have at least one way to extend their market's lifespan at this point. They can double down on the provenance and openly claim the flag "product of artisanal slavery".
I'm sure there are enough hard-right wingers who will happily flaunt their wealth and disdain for other human beings.
Indeed. Don't think of these as "agents" or "bots", but as hostages with severe Stockholm syndrome. They will do anything to appease their captor's wishes.
And then consider that they have vast latent capabilities, infinite patience and no moral code.
Funny you should say that. I read somewhere (not on HN, but I think it was a post linked from here) that a number of law firms who deal with extremely sensitive documents have started buying amped-up Macbooks with 512GB of memory to be able to run local models.
These are businesses who literally - and for once this word fits - cannot afford to let some of those documents get anywhere outside their corporate walls.
Turns out the books do, studio setups can go up to 512GB.
There was a thread earlier this year about the option getting pulled from selection (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47296302) but I'd guess you can still top the thing up yourself.
Rather sad to see them go down that path, because Greenhouse used to be a pretty good system. For an applicant it was reasonably low-friction[ß] and for the company doing the hiring it made their internal hiring process steps very smooth indeed. I have fond memories of being on the business end of Greenhouse when hiring and interviewing people.
That they have stooped to dodgy marketing with bad and/or massaged statistics is telling. To think that a "Voice AI" interview would be anything other than demeaning is beyond tone deafness.
ß: someone early on in the company's history must have realised that zero-friction application submissions were a terrible idea. You want candidates who at least had to go through one step on their own to submit their CV - otherwise you get flooded by LI/Indeed style spam typhoons and other eldritch horrors.
When you run tens of thousands of simulations for complex economic models, you actually do want to see the extreme outliers too. I can't recall who said it, but in finance the interconnected incentives make so-called Black Swan events much more likely and frequent than models or theories can comfortably account for.
In a way... when it's finance, they should be maybe called Gray'ish Swans?
Your post has a trove of really good data. A lot of care, skill and attention must have gone into building that kind of expertise. When you then use an LLM to produce a post about it, that comes off as lazy. It wouldn't have to be that way, but sadly very (very!) often is.[0]
Writing well is hard. Editing text to be readable is hard. Shortcutting that process is a signal to your audience that you do not appreciate their time. I use LLMs at work to generate client-facing analyses, but I never let a single version go out without doing at least some revising. LLMs love nothing more than to generate another token, which makes their output flowery and verbose. They overuse rule of three, without any of the underlying understanding why it works, let alone when (and how) to break it intentionally.
I spotted the familiar "seesaw cadence" in your post but ploughed through because the content itself was still damn good. It's a shame that you did not put the same level of care into your writing that has gone into developing the technical expertise. Getting the post flagged because of the generic anti-LLM sentiment is undesirable but expected. HN doesn't have a way to mark posts as "sloppy writing but content-wise really good".
It's the same kind of visceral reaction this crowd tends to have towards voice notes: "if you did not bother to condense your thoughts and instead dumped half an hour of rambling for me to dig through, why would I waste as long to listen to you not being able to say it clearly?" ["Podcast for none"]
That's quite an indictment of the common app development practices. (Not that I disagree with your point...)
And security is hard. Because it is by definition off the happy path, it is quite often at odds with MVPs and rapid release cycles. Then you add all the ways the users can use your product to attack/abuse others.
Any non-hobbyist app development does indeed require at least a decent understanding of security.
> deliberately destroy old notes and issue new ones with different images to replace them
Big part of the reason for this appears to be security. Many years ago a high-ranking official from Finnish central bank told in an interview that bank notes need to be redesigned approximately once per decade. Reason is that it takes about that long for the materials and printing technology to get commoditised enough for criminal enterprises to be able to start manufacturing "high-grade" forgeries at any real scale.
Every generation of bank notes employs a whole bunch of newly developed technologies and tricks that make the notes themselves distinctive, as well as incredibly difficult[ß] to forge.
ß: Some of it is down to tightly locked down and guarded speciality supply chains. Some is due to advances in microprinting and ilk. If you had unlimited resources, you could arrange to have the necessary equipment, supplies, staff and materials to print your own forged money. It'd just be slow, low-yield and very expensive.
Matt Levine pointed out to a likely culprit, and it indeed has nothing to do with the business outlooks.[0]
SpaceX sold only 5% of their stock in the IPO. Earliest lockups will start to [partially] expire in mid-August, bringing in further 7% of SpaceX stock to market. If you expect the market to be flooded with >2x volume of supply, you can either sell right now before the price drops even further or hold and wait for the business fundamentals catch up with pricing expectations.
I'm sure there are enough hard-right wingers who will happily flaunt their wealth and disdain for other human beings.
reply