Firstly, you would do well to read the guidelines about avoiding snark, and then actually say whatever it is you’re trying to say rather than make insinuations. As is, this response comes across as a very shallow read. It’s hard to get to the root of what you’re actually saying in your post other than it quotes two paragraphs about how it’s not fun to push through the bureaucracy of a large organisation, which - I would agree. Probably most people who’ve worked at a big company would.
So why does that make him a “big shot”? Are you perhaps envious of him?
Why does openAI deserve him or anyone? Hard to say.
As a Londoner who used to have to ride up Abbey Road at least once per week there are people on that crossing pretty much all day every day reproducing that picture. So now Waymo are in Beta in London[1] they have only to drive up there and they'll get plenty of footage they could use for taht.
[1] I've seen a couple of them but they're not available to hire yet and are still very rare.
Yeah it’s interesting to imagine a London that had such a rebuild, like Napoleon’s rebuild of Paris. I personally love the weird narrow streets and little alleyways of the City, but that’s because when I’m there I’m pretty much exclusively on foot having taken the tube in.
Sure, that’s one solution. You could also Isle of Dr Moreau your way to a pelican that can use a regular bike. The sky is the limit when you have no scruples.
I broadly agree, but the place where psychology comes in in the continuous auction process. Just like a conventional auction, when prices start to go up, some people get overexcited and bid things up further, and conversely when people become terrified and stampede for the exits, selling assets at prices that are below any reasonable fundamental value. In the supply/demand model this is essentially the stock transitioning into being a Veblen good (where demand rises as price rises) and whatever the opposite of that is called, which is an interesting phenomenon and afaics purely psychological with no rational basis (unless you think greed/fear is rational I suppose)
That said, when people claim to distill the market psychology into a single recap or analyze the market psychology to predict future price, that's pretty much nonsense.
That’s exactly the same as going into a furniture shop and going “if this furniture was so good, then why would they want to sell it so badly”. They’re a furniture shop - they make and sell furniture. There’s only so much furniture you need for yourself after all no matter how good it is.
Investment banks make investment products for investors. They do keep risk for themselves so you will find when they sell these loans they will often keep a slice, but they only need so much Oracle datacenter loan risk - they want to have free capital to find other opportunities to fund.
It is not the same and your metaphor is bad. Furniture generates revenue when sold, loans generate revenue just by holding them as there is an interest that needs to be repaid.
Hence the shop sells the inventory as fast as they can, while banks hold safe loans as long as they can unless they believe that aren't safe anymore or that they can make more money with something else.
You understand how present value works right? Holding a loan on balance sheet generates a stream of income that extends into the future and has to be discounted and have credit value adjustments applied, which is very expensive because you have to then hedge the rate and credit risk on top of funding the actual loans themselves. Selling a loan has two benefits over this. Firstly it generates actual cash now which you can book right away and is real so doesn't need to have CVA and discounting. Secondly it gives you a mark to market price for any piece of the loan or similar loans which you are still holding in your book.
I'm not speaking theoretically here - I have been forced to sell loans for capital reasons because they were too expensive to fund even though they were all current, 100% money good and massively overcollateralized.
If a loan is supported by a known lease it is more attractive to investors than a regular loan, so I somewhat doubt they are thinking about it like this.
The real reason they will be doing this is this is what they do in general. They don’t hold on to huge amounts of risk with predictable returns (because it consumes their operating and regulatory risk capital inefficiently) they will instead find buyers for that risk, which frees up capital they can then use on their next thing. That basically gives up some of the long term, low return, low volatility risk for shorter term, higher return, higher volatility risk.
Speaking from personal experience which is admittedly quite old at this point, but it used to be the case that Debian definitely didn’t go out of its way to try to pull in devs. When I had a few small open source things myself I packaged them for RedHat (this is pre-fedora when RedHat didn’t have a commercial and free version, they just had “RedHat Linux”) and looked to package them for debian, given I was actually using debian for a few of my personal servers. I made the .deb packages just fine but found the Debian community were definitely not trying to attract devs[1]. I couldn’t get anyone from Debian to sign my gpg keys which if I recall correctly was a necessary part in getting my package upstreamed[2] and in the end I just gave up on it because I’m really not interested in joining a community that is so unwelcoming.
[1] although it was maybe specifically just me they weren’t trying to attract.
[2] to the point where I actually worked with someone in my day job who was a debian dev and he wouldn’t sign my key without me producing physical official ID like a passport or something. Just really bizarre level of paranoia like a government kyc process or something.
> I couldn’t get anyone from Debian to sign my gpg keys which if I recall correctly was a necessary part in getting my package upstreamed
You recall it incorrectly. You need that for becoming a Debian Maintainer and gaining direct upload rights, but for contributing a package you only need to have it sponsored by a Debian Developer.
People should only sign a key under at least two conditions:
The key owner convinces the signer that the identity in the UID is indeed their own identity by whatever evidence the signer is willing to accept as convincing. Usually this means the key owner must present a government issued ID with a picture and information that match up with the key owner. (Some signers know that government issued ID's are easily forged and that the trustability of the issuing authorities is often suspect and so they may require additional and/or alternative evidence of identity).
The key owner verifies that the fingerprint and the length of the key about to be signed is indeed their own.
--
...debian is INDEED old-school and slightly derpy (see their use of the condorcet voting method), but it has boded extremely well for their longevity. Debian exists for its users, and its users are generally developers.
It’s two sentences for goodness sake. Why on earth should anyone spend their time reading your “thoughts” when you don’t think it’s worth spending your time to write them?
More substantively, I don’t believe it is true, but hypothetically why would “the real” problem be having 100 distros on distrowatch with little to choose between them? The benefit of open source for the individual is supposed to be the opportunity to learn by doing and to have the freedom to do things however you want, and the benefit to the community is this extreme Darwinian process where lots of crazy people try all sorts of things and the community as a whole picks results they like. All of these benefits arise precisely because there are a lot of projects, many of which don’t achieve mass adoption.
So why does that make him a “big shot”? Are you perhaps envious of him?
Why does openAI deserve him or anyone? Hard to say.
reply