I switched to Zed, and I'm never going back to Electron/non-native IDEs.

If I charge a client $50k for some software and they made $1 million profit from it, good for them? As long as they pay our mutually agreed upon rate on time and there was no hostile negotiation, why should I feel suddenly entitled to more money if that wasn't in our contract? How do I know how much of the value is from my work and not their marketing or idea?

What you're saying seems as crazy as me saying that someone who bought my software for $99 and used it on a multi-million dollar project is being unethical unless they give me more money. How on Earth does that make sense? Should I be forced to switch to a royalty model? What if I make more selling copies at a flat rate, what if I don't want to have to investigate the finances of thousands of customers and have to deal with that whole trouble?

For me it's the same thing regardless of whether I'm selling my labour or a product. I can choose whether to accept a flat hourly rate, equity, or a mix of both, and usually the better deal is the hourly rate.

If I find a way to hire a software engineer for market rates (say, $200k/year in the US) and get $2M revenue from their work, good? They can ask for a raise or a bonus, we can renegotiate, they can leave if they're unhappy, but I'm not obligated to give them more money than was in our agreement anymore than they're obligated to give me their salary back in the project fails.

Don't >95% of tech companies offer stock options or equity, from startups to FAANG?

Even A100s are still barely available on the major clouds despite being 6 years old.

And people in general are holding on to their old machines for very long periods of time now, especially CPUs. I've had to support first gen Intel i7s at work! That's pre AVX.

Even the ancient V100 (soon to be 10 years old!) had somewhat of resurgence on the second-hand market, with a healthy market for interconnects in China.

If I had a datacenter and power consumption was not a concern, I'd be holding on to my A100s for years at least for inference.

It wouldn’t surprise me that due to bureaucratic processes, it’s still somehow the most readily available GPU for Apple researchers despite being almost 10 years old now. I recall even last year seeing V100s used by Microsoft researchers who weren’t working on LLMs.

They’ve significantly increased in price (so much for hardware depreciation…) but you can still get a modded 22GB 2080 ti for $320, or a Mi50 32GB for ~$450 each (used to be $150 a few months ago, alas), or a Mi50 16GB or <$200 but you’d need to stack 4 of them.

There’s also some more exotic configurations but those are probably the simplest options. You won’t get the performance of an RTX Pro 6000 Blackwell of course, and the power consumption will be pretty high so it’s only worth it if you have cheap electricity. But it is possible.

The idea is obviously to be running the LLM on your work laptop. As a developer I'd need a laptop with 24GB of RAM for work anyway, and 48GB, which is enough for a very good quant of Gemini, is just $400 extra.

Say what? 5 years ago OpenAI had received around $139 million in funding, and they’d just come out with GPT3 with 175B parameters, a 2048 context window, trained on 300B tokens on a 10,000 V100 cluster which would have cost maybe $4-13 million at the time for their training run.

Meanwhile Deepseek V3’s famously frugal training was $5M, and Chinese AI companies are raising billions in funding. Sure American AI companies are raising tens (and maybe hundreds in the case of OpenAI, if you count their circular funding rounds) of billions but they’re grossly inefficient, and we’ve already hit the limits of the scaling laws where there’s little point in increasing the number of parameters of a model.

Not sure it's about being a high trust society or not, there's frequent inspections where they block the doors, and you get a hefty fine if you're caught without a valid ticket. I certainly wouldn't call Prague or Rome or Dublin high trust societies on par with a Swiss city.

VPSes and non-custom configs for dedicated servers were pretty instant as far as I know, I think the advantage of AWS was more that you could scale up and down much more easily since you weren’t locked down in a monthly contract, and that you could automate server provisioning through an API.

Am I the only one who remembers that VPSes and dedicated hosting services were a thing before AWS came around? Yes you had to pay for a month at a time and scaling wasn’t as instant, but it wasn’t like the only option before cloud computing was having to drive to the datacentre and install your own server.

As I've said, and @echoangle repeated, caning is used for cyberbullying, which girls do too (at a rate relatively close to boys actually). If the law was caning in response to physical bullying, and it just so happened that the vast majority of offenders were boys, I would not object on the basic of sexism (I still would not approve of schools being allowed to physically punish students).

> Yes, for homo sapiens, the female is more fragile than the male. This is basic biology. I'm sure that in praying mantis society, females get harsher punishments.

There's no way the typical 16 year old girl is more fragile than the typical 9 year old boy, yet only the latter is subject to this punishment. Until children reach the age of 12 or so the strength difference is quite minor (and there's even a brief period where girls are taller and heavier).

Also it's absurd to punish demographics differently based on their statistical averages. Redheads are less sensitive to pain, should your hair colour determine how many strokes of the cane you get?