I've never thought of matrix as a mature technology ever since.

even mastodon figured out federation.

To your point about emergency services—while it's true that any unactivated phone must be allowed to dial 911, that rule only opens a one-way path to emergency dispatch. It doesn't give a device the ability to place outbound calls to everyday citizens. The real loophole isn't a public safety mandate; it's the wholesale VoIP market.

> It’s not a rumor - there are many public announcements about $B deals around compute for other Ai companies

The last time I read a public announcement, the commentary I read was this is because Anthorpic doesn't want to run out of cash or capacity before a funding round / IPO so they gave Google some equity and in return Google gave it some compute resources? You could reframe it as Google is buying into Anthorpic — which is how Claude tends to frame it as but the end result is the same. Equity for spare capacity.

You could even argue that at a hyperscaler like Google's scale — all capacity is spare capacity and no capacity is spare capacity at the same time. GCP seems to have deals with Anthorpic, OpenAI, Meta, Apple, Healthcare companies, Banks, LG(?), Best Buy(?) so in my mind Google (and all AI vendors) are hyping up AI to drive up interest and building up as fast as they can to capture that interest and convert it into cold, hard cash. It honestly feels like this is out of my mental capacity though because these AI vendors had the cold hard cash that they spent on these data centers that we don't even know might become obsolete within a decade(?) but I guess meanwhile they could make beaucoup bucks. There is also the idea that they had to be seen as conspicuously spending on AI or investors might see them as falling behind, triggering a selloff. So yeah I guess it is a fact that GCP is selling compute to other AI companies but it makes sense because basically you can build capacity potentially for Gemini to use in the future while having other companies pay for some of that cost today.

In my mind, for hyperscalers — Google, Amazon dot com, Microsoft — competitors are not really enemies but rather partners. The real fear or threat is market uncertainty and customers souring on AI altogether. As long as customers are interested in this AI stuff, you could compete on merit or cost benefit ratio but if competitors start failing because they ran out of capacity or cash, that could send an unwanted message to the market.

To summarize though, I have to agree that the supposed rumors are better than rumors, they are facts and we could even make an educated guess that this is a part of a strategy, as much as you can strategize when it comes to an "industry" with a high fixed cost and an uncertain demand.

I'll give you an example. At a previous employer, We used Google Analytics. We paid for Google Analytics. I feel positive that as a mid size company, We shouldn't have paid for Google Analytics. The free product with 50 events in GA4 should be plenty for us. But why do we use Google Analytics in the first place? Because everyone uses Google Analytics.

I agree that sometimes Salesforce might be a good idea. However, it should be a part of an overall strategy, not just because everyone does it. This kind of deliberate tooling strategy is difficult though because the way Google Analytics or Salesforce works from what I understand is make marketing folks feel they are specialized in Google Analytics or Salesforce so they feel like they have to keep using it or their skill will become useless.

It is like resume driven development but for the whole business.

I asked Claude to generate an HTML page about PowerShell 7. It gave me a page saying 7.4 was the latest LTS release. I corrected it with links showing 7.6 was released in March and asked it to regenerate with the latest information.

It generated basically the same page with the same claim that 7.4 was the latest release.

I thought it meant like keep things as local as possible. Like within the same process, within the same machine, avoid going through the network because staying on the processor is always the fastest, going to ram is next fastest, and if you need to communicate across the network it is always slowest

> As a teacher, I can tell you that students get really angry if you put a question on an exam that requires a concept not explicitly covered in class. Of course, if you work as an engineer and you’re stuck on a problem and you tell your boss it cannot be solved with the ideas you learned in college… you’re going to look like a fool.

I really hope this kind of thinking dies away because the longer you wait the more money you waste, not just your own salary but the opportunity cost of time. And this person is a teacher?

I don't know where the flaw in the logic was but I think the idea was first you have to become wealthier and with more money comes a better quality of life.

Why?