kjksf

5 ms·

1.
by kjksf 6d ago
They clearly changed their mind. That "no longer developed" note is from September 2025. They made a bunch of non-trivial improvements in 2026: https://simplenote.com/blog/
2.
by kjksf 9d ago
Except they are not "rolling it out". What exists is a web page where you can express an interest in that offering. But you can't buy a cybercab today. This whole article is much ado about nothing. Tesla has a page to gauge i
3.
by kjksf 15d ago
In latest pre-release it does editing too (annotations, filling out forms, extracting pages, deleting pages etc.)
4.
by kjksf 3mo ago
Cursor has $4 billion annual revenue rate so $60b is 15 years of future cashflows. That's not crazy because if past predicts the future, that revenue will grow quickly. At $8 billion/year it's just 7.5 years, which is a reaso
5.
by kjksf 3mo ago
Per latest reporting, Cursor's current annual revenue rate is $4 billion. So SpaceX is buying 15 years of future cashflows, assuming no change in revenue. Which is bad assumption given past growth was gigantic. They are also buying 300
6.
by kjksf 3mo ago
You're extrapolating from an exception. EGCS was created because Cygnus, a company whose business was based on GCC, wasn't getting their patches to GCC, maintained by non-company FSF. Cygnus outcompeted FSF by so much that FSF fol
7.
by kjksf 4mo ago
Or maybe it's very rational because their 2021 (IPO year) revenue ($7,839m) was higher than their 2025 revenue ($7,181). Granted, their profitability is better but in 2021 they were (rationally) valued based on Great Expectations which
8.
by kjksf 4mo ago
Nasdaq is a company that exists to make money. They make money by curating an index i.e. a list of companies and licensing that list to other companies for a fee. If they pick good, profitable companies with great future, then the business
9.
by kjksf 4mo ago
> For whatever reason The reason is not "whatever". Only very successful CEOs can negotiate super voting shares. In this context "successful" means "runs very profitable company". If you're crap CEO (yo
10.
by kjksf 4mo ago
SpaceX had to literally sue the military to even be allowed to bid for projects. And won. And then won the contracts. The guy who landed on the Moon testified in congress opposing giving SpaceX any money. The government wanted nothing to do
11.
by kjksf 4mo ago
Musk just tied his compensation to having 1 million people on Mars. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... Do explain to me his evil plan of becoming rich by lying about going to Mars and yet a
12.
by kjksf 5mo ago
Prohibition did fail and US had to revert ban on alcohol. The rules are made by politicians. All it takes to change the rules is to rotate politicians. Or enough public dissent that the same politicians are forced to revert the rules.
13.
by kjksf 5mo ago
What is it, o wise person stingy with the information.
14.
by kjksf 5mo ago
Not only it can but it does. Just as I was reading this claude implemented a drag&drop of images out of SumatraPDF. I asked: > implement dragging out images; if we initiate drag action and the element under cursor is an image, allow
15.
by kjksf 5mo ago
The same logic applies to your statement: > Do that enough and you won't know enough about your codebase to recognise errors in the LLM output. Okay, when that happens, then sure, you'll have a problem. I have not seen any ev
16.
by kjksf 5mo ago
Nothing would be more effective at killing open source and commercial software business that requiring everyone that writes and ships software to users, directly or indirectly (e.g. an open-source library) to have License To Program from So
17.
by kjksf 5mo ago
1. 99.999999% of software is not equivalent to "doing surgery" so doesn't need gatekeeping. I work on free, open-source PDF reader SumatraPDF. What kind of authorization should I get and from whom to ship this software to peo
18.
by kjksf 5mo ago
Are they getting that from Bluesky? Mastodon? LinkedIn? Instagram? TikTok? Facebook? Of course not. And yet they leave X and only X.
19.
by kjksf 5mo ago
And yet they post on Bluesky and Mastodon. If it's about effort vs. impressions, leaving X doesn't sound like a rational decision.
20.
by kjksf 5mo ago
In the age of AI tools like this are pointless. Especially new ones, given existence of make, cmake, premake and a bunch of others. C++ build system, at the core, boils down to calling gcc foo.c -o foo.obj / link foo.obj foo.exe (pleas
21.
by kjksf 5mo ago
I have no issue with with code generated by e.g. Claude because it's not "slop". On average, it's probably better than the code I would write. I say "on average" because AI doesn't make stupid mistakes, do
22.
by kjksf 5mo ago
AI is assisting you. It'll write efficient code if you guide it to write efficient code. You're not a hapless victim of ai written code. To give you a concrete examples. Recently pretext library made waves. I looked at the code an
23.
by kjksf 5mo ago
The comparison valid for his example would be to compare revenues from mass produced pottery vs. revenues of handmade pottery sold on etsy. Methinks that mass produced pottery makes more than $2 billion and etsy pottery is a tiny fraction o
24.
by kjksf 5mo ago
Do you disagree with his analogy? Hand made pottery cannot compete on price with industrially made pottery and therefore majority of pottery is made industrially. 100% human written code cannot compete on price with AI assisted code and the
25.
by kjksf 5mo ago
This is not first time in history that RAM prices spiked. And it'll be resolved the same way all others were. demand > supply => higher prices => incentive to produce more => produce more => supply > demand => lowe
26.
by kjksf 6mo ago
It's all so vague. "lack of investment in their skill". You just spent $250k and 5 years in college learning stuff. You get hired to do a job for money. What "investment" do you expect company to do? Give me number
27.
by kjksf 6mo ago
What is your expectation, exactly? In US you go to college for 4-5 years and pay $50k per year. Or more. You pay to learn. A lot of money, a lot of time. Then you get a job, where the idea is that you get paid for doing work and you expect
28.
by kjksf 6mo ago
There's an argument to be made about bad incentives driving large public companies. But it's way less satisfying that emotional appeals. The base of your statement is just wrong. A company is a legal fiction. It doesn't have
29.
by kjksf 6mo ago
Misleading people is not ok. It's so not ok that we have laws against misleading people. Not against this particular misleading (I don't think, although if Asimov had a formal estate they could probably sue). I can't open &qu
30.
by kjksf 6mo ago
In case of Asimov, forever. To flip your rhetorical trick against you: would it be ok if they did it 1 year after death? If no, then I'm "interested in more detail about when the odiousness crosses into being socially acceptable f

More ›