But also true that we have some strong local accents, and that people no matter their level should feel encouraged to at least try to speak French. It's the best way to learn.

I think there is a couple of interesting things. First, it's still somewhat orthogonal to the High context versus Low context cultures (see the Culture Map), as in you can have people with more ask versus guess culture in either communication contexts from my observations (at least among some low to mid context cultures, I don't have a lot of experience with very high context cultures).

Another way to think about it is that it's a lot more local than the broader culture of a country, down to the family level, and you can see this in the US as many commenters have reported where they grew up in various different places in the ask vs guess spectrum.

Finally, the US work environment is generally very "Ask"-leaning, in particular in Silicon Valley and it can take a significant amount of time to recognize where you have been raised on this spectrum versus what is required of you to be effective at work.

It's been quite illuminating for people in multicultural teams...

So for those large companies, the sunken cost is larger.

Also the most memorable ones are when people were dismissive but ultimately wrong about the viability of the business (like the "dropbox" comment).

To be fair, I doubt Maestro will take off like Airflow did.

Airflow filled a void of an easier orchestrator for Big Data with a prettier UI than the competitors of the time (Oozie, Luigi), implementing some UX patterns which had been tested at scale at Facebook with data swarm.

The field is quite a bit more crowded now.

I have similar questions about the future of Delta Lake, but not really about the future of Iceberg, that's what the Apache Foundation is for after all. There are enough large enterprise players relying on this (Apple, Netflix, ...) to keep the project going for a while.

True, but it's hard to start something as big as OpenAI and not warrant a little scrutiny. At least, I think there is plenty of public interest here, in particular because of the chosen mission statement for the company.

> Ultimately, I ask myself, is my life better because Sam was born and did what he did? And the answer is 1,000 times "yes!" because the introduction of ChatGPT changed so much and enabled so much creation and learning for me personally.

Which is a very reasonable position, but is the fact that your life is better negate concerns that applications of ChatGPT may actually make other people's lives worse? And that the lack of transparency around conflicts of interest raises reasonable concerns about both judgement and the ability of the organization to deliver on its mission?

>> It’s an organization created by a national government. > Why? What about this requires the power of "government?"

Budget mostly. I don't think the power of government is strictly required. There are some private organizations which try to take care of the commons (Hiya, Mozilla!), but it's still by and far had to fund. Why not use public funding for this?

> Contributor agreements are about to get way more parsimonious and annoying.

Why? I don't think the project necessarily needs to be owned by the organization, right? In which case, nothing changes to the contribution model.

> Nation states use software and knowledge of zero days to commit espionage against each other. He can't be serious with this.

That's true, but it's not as if there was no tension there. Significant backdoors could have impacts on the economy of some nations which are therefore incentivized to keep things running smoothly. You can play offense and defense at the same time.