I won’t argue about the obviousness as that’s a tarpit of comparing each others social circles, but let say it’s reasonable to assuming this wasn’t his first ever brush stroke to touch canvas.

If one must point fingers, a better target is those actually in power.

This is an issue the US finds itself in now as it tries to onshore manufacturing again after allowing someone else to play middle man for decades.

Yes, the US has plenty of capital resources but that doesn’t directly translate into production when you have to setup not just a single factory but an entire supply chain.

It should’ve been at least 450 euro equivalent even in 1990, using 2024 value euros.

Source: https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/ta_netherlands_mwdb.pdf

They also are relating a story from their past and since they have had an account since 2015, I am assuming their youthful past was at least 1 decade ago if not nearly 20 years ago.

Apple has shortcuts, but they haven’t propped it up like a standard that other people can use.

To contrast this is something you can use even if you have nothing to do with Claude, and your tools created will be compatible with the wider ecosystem.

[1] https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/

You bring up good points, but I don't think that company naming has to be 100% proof against confusion, it's just one more helpful thing for consumers to identify whom they are doing business with.

In the case of close names like "Barkley", if they're doing banking, there is probably a trademark case against if they actually use it to confuse customers.

Intrestingly enough, "Barkley Holdings" was registered by competing bank HSBC: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...

In the US though, every state has it's own registry, and names overlap without the power of trademark protection applying to markets your company is not in.

We've got an backend pipeline that does image processing. At every step of the pipeline, it would make copies of small (less than 10MB) files from an S3 storage source, do a task, then copy the results back up to the storage source.

Originally, it was using AWS but years ago it was decided that AWS was not cost effective so we turned to another partner OVH and Backblaze.

Unfortunately, the reliability and throughput of both of them isn't as consistent as AWS and this has been a constant headache.

We were going to go back to AWS or find a new partner, but I nominated we use NFS. So we build nothing, pay nothing, get POSIX semantics back, and speed has gone up 3x. At peak, we only copy 40GB of files per day, so it was never really necessary to use S3 except that our servers were distributed and that was the only way anyone previously could think to give each server the same storage source.

While this isn't exactly what the OP and you are talking about, I think it illustrates a fact: SaaS software was seen as the hammer to all nails, giving you solutions and externalizing problems and accountability.

Now that either the industry has matured, building in-house is easier, or cost centers need to be reduced, SaaS is going be re-evaluated under the context of 'do we really need it'?

I think the answer to many people is going to be no, you don't need enterprise level solutions at all levels of your company, especially if you're not anywhere near the Fortune 1000.

I feel like this is true, but anytime I speak with colleagues in the arts (even UX and visual designers), they all say they are happy with copyright being lifetime of the owner + XX years. They (a) want the income for their legacy in case their products are still in use or appreciated decades later and (b) they want to control the output of their intellect.

As for the sniffling of creativity? They don't see that. If you can produce something, it's easy to only focus on the finer aspects.

An example would be software developers thinking only of code copyright as meaningfully applying to full applications but the functions that make up the codebase are just concepts easily reproduced, so it doesn't matter that technically the functions are also copyright protected.

Even though we can accept cards for everyone, transaction fees means no one wants to use it.

Credit cards payments do work during blackouts, but process slowly. It goes from <30 seconds to receipt to 10 minutes+. The bank software just continually retries until it gets all the data it needs.

We take table reservations over the phone, or via WhatsApp. There's no real complexity to it. The data just needs to be with us at one location, the resturaunt, since that's the same place the customer will be coming to. Being online grants us nothing.

I run a resturaunt. Resturaunt software (POS, scheduling, table reservations) has many saas solutions, but I've personally seen these problems:

- POS requires cellular for some legal reason, but celluar connection is poor inside a mall

- Power goes out, backup services bring cell networks & fiber back online but not in a uniform manner so service is slow and the Saas times out too quickly to be used

- 2 factor auth won't work because cell systems are degraded

And in all these cases, there wasn't a good reason for the software to be fully online. The usage was by 1 or 2 managers and they all shared the same computer located inside the business.

So it's less of a complaint and more of well meaning advise that he too should work for pay.

I think it thought this was a trick question.

Big win for those who care about privacy over all else.