It’s the concept of a management chart as an inverted pyramid with each layer holding up and supporting the layer above them. If you imagine a promotion as working your way down the corporate pyramid, then it’s easier to see how the managers at the bottom are carrying more weight and deserving of higher pay.

As opposed to a pyramid where it’s visually represented as the broader management layers supporting the layers above them.

In a pyramid, it looks like the CEO has a cushy, overpaid job. In an inverted pyramid it looks like they have the weight and responsibility of the company on their shoulders.

Time slowing down does seem useful in the event you can actually affect your circumstances.

With Warp, you purchase your AI compute through Warp (who then pays Anthropic, Open AI, etc. based on the model you choose).

Here’s where I got it from, but I see how it’s ambiguous. “You pay for what you use” sounds a bit like the BYOK (bring your own key) “add-on credits” pricing model you’re referring to.

But in the pricing table, they refer to monthly “AI credits”.

You’re really paying for AI compute, not the terminal.

The new Build plan at $20/mo has 1,500 AI requests, but they roll over. (Edit: apparently they don’t)

> No bones about it: this plan will be more expensive for some users and less expensive for others.

> We get that there’s a lot of whiplash in the AI devtools pricing market, and sympathize. While we expect some churn from this change, we are trying to do it in as minimally disruptive a way as possible.

I’ve found Warp to be very useful, but you’re really paying for AI compute, not the terminal. And the AI compute space is getting very competitive.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45772418

Points: 4

# Comments: 2

* The casino takes a rake, so you lose money every hand, but you only win when the fish bets and loses. You’re also expected to tip the dealer

* Everything is on camera and dealers remember players, so there will be a lot of witnesses and evidence

* Seats often open one at a time, so you’d potentially lose money at other tables waiting to play together. Or, you all show up at once and ask to start a new table together, which would get suspicious.

* If you don’t know the fish’s cards, there’s still a chance you lose and lose big

That seems like a human-centric perspective.

Maybe they’re a cooperative, altruistic society with an innate desire to help, and maybe had been helped by others before. To not teach us about the imminent dangers of the universe might seem unconscionable to them.

Or maybe they’re a highly ordered society with an innate common goal and see nothing wrong with asking other entities to join their mission.

Sure, some humans may view their contact as intrusive or harmful, but that doesn’t mean they automatically would as well.

If I had to bet, I’d bet you’re right, but the universe is a big place and who knows what societies might be out there that would feel totally foreign to us.

I like the trend where the agent decides what models, tooling and thought process to use. That seems to me far more powerful than asking users to create solutions for each discreet problem space.

As a long-time user I’ve seen the most change around “What to Submit”:

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics

> If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic

The guidelines haven’t changed but it feels like the enforcement of it has.

For example, the US government shutdown is currently on the HN top 20: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45434146

While a mainstream newsworthy story, I fail to see how it “gratifies one's intellectual curiosity” or is “Anything that good hackers would find interesting.”

Most subagent examples are vague or simplistic.

Two observations:

1. Natural language appears to be to be the starting point of any endeavor.

2.

> It may be illuminating to try to imagine what would have happened if, right from the start our native tongue would have been the only vehicle for the input into and the output from our information processing equipment. My considered guess is that history would, in a sense, have repeated itself, and that computer science would consist mainly of the indeed black art how to bootstrap from there to a sufficiently well-defined formal system. We would need all the intellect in the world to get the interface narrow enough to be usable, and, in view of the history of mankind, it may not be overly pessimistic to guess that to do the job well enough would require again a few thousand years.

LLMs are trying to replicate all of the intellect in the world.

I’m curious if the author would consider that these lofty caveats may be more plausible today than they were when the text was written.

With a mass market product leader you’re sacrificing a bit of customization for long-term stability.

A high end soup and an affordable soup might be serving two different markets.

But overall many companies seem to value and attract more of the same culture they already have in place. So to a degree, I’d say yes ageism exists in certain companies that don’t value experience as highly as other qualities.