Surely not coincidental with having unprecedented access to a global network of people to reach, worse economic opportunities than any other living generation and limited means to change matters on their own, and the USA which is the largest exporter of global culture has GoFundMe as an essential part of its healthcare system

They have the consumer market but want the enterprise market, because it's a lot more lucrative, so they're probably going to just keep chasing that even though there's no signs they'll stop losing to Anthropic. They don't need to do that much to keep the consumer market because of momentum.

Questionable whether the enterprise market really is the most lucrative. The biggest of big tech all have significant revenue from the consumer market. Compare Apple, Google, Meta, to IBM, Salesforce, ServiceNow.

Enterprise market is paying by token and using a lot of tokens. Consumer market is paying a subscription that they can't raise too high or they'll lose users to competition. Seems to me that the enterprise market scales a lot higher.

Enterprise / B2B has always been easier and more lucrative. Once a large enterprise integrates with your product, they won’t move away unless there’s an actual issue. So then the “moat” becomes the contract.

Meanwhile, OpenAI is spending ludicrous amounts on things like a Sora-TikTok app in order to create a network effect, and failing at it.

Seems pretty obvious to me what the better strategy is.

Have you seen many corporations complaining and caping usage to 20-200usd per developer per month. I doubt will change much. Many are considering on premise now.

The consumer market by and large pays $20/mo to get tokens in response to stuff like

"My friend hurt my feelings and I don't know how to approach the problem" routed to whatever the default model is.

it's really not much compared to the amount they are spending on training. 100 developers at $200 per month is just $20000

$240,000

Apple, sure. But Google and Meta are really advertising companies, whose income stream comes from enterprises, big and small.

Not to mention Google Cloud.

You can but that doesn't help you keep the flood of contributions out when you don't have the time or resources to properly discern good from bad. Maintainers would rather have 10 good human authored patches than 100 patches from LLMs, even if 20 of them are good. Even if 50 of them are good, probably.

As if a rule against LLMs actually stops those sorts of spam contributions.

The only thing it does is filter good contributors out, while you still have to deal with the bad ones.

It makes it easier to filter. Most LLM spam can be easily noticed. And those that aren't automatically filtered, can fairly easily be closed by the maintainer - when they don't have the weight to assess each on their validity.

The kernel has many different subsystems and the subsystems have their own maintainers and mailing lists.

One commit per logical change, `git send-email` instead of `git push` and open a PR. Sending patches is not the difference maker here.

If they were going to mimic a more Photoshop-like UI by default, they would've done it. GIMPshop was around over two decades ago

I thought they were already heading in that direction with the single window mode merging. But ok sure I guess they'll never change anything because a sister project existed 2 decades ago or whatever.

Always the play if you're comfortable sourcing and installing your own because their store will always have a decent markup.

The thing I like about Linux is that if your thing doesn't work you have a way better chance of being able to wrangle it into working (odds increasing as your technical skill increases)

Meanwhile on Windows if something doesn't work you're generally SOL.

What do you mean? If i google "{Insert issue here} Windows" i get clear and easy solutions.

1. You reboot. 2. You try sfc /scannow 3. You try Dism 4. You reboot again. Doesnt work? (like 99,99999% of cases, like with a pc i had to fix yesterday) 5. Reinstall windows

Doesnt work? Have fun trying to get information from microsofts documentation where the same thing got documented 3 different ways 3 different times, and when you change from/to your native language you get another 3 different documentations. All telling you entirely different things, each screenshot showing a ui that doesnt resemble yours because it gotta change every month.

Very fun, not annoying at all :)

IBM ostensibly failing with Watson (before Krishna was CEO for what it's worth) doesn't inherently invalidate his assessment here

It makes it suspect when combined with the obvious incentive to make the fact that IBM is basically non-existent in the AI space look like an intentional, sagacious choice to investors. It very may well be, but CEOs are fantastically unreliable narrators.

You expect somebody to be heavily invested currently and also completely openly pessimistic about it?

No, I don’t trust a word Sundar or Satya say about AI either. CEOs should be hyping anything they’re invested in, it’s literally their job. But convincing investors that every thing they don’t invest in heavily is worthless garbage is effectively part of their job too.

What is more convincing is when someone invests heavily (and is involved heavily) and then decides to stop sending good money after bad (in their estimation). Not that they’re automatically right, but is at least pay attention to their rationales. You learn very little about the real world by listening to the most motivated reasoner’s nearly fact-free bloviation.

> What is more convincing is when someone invests heavily (and is involved heavily) and then decides to stop sending good money after bad (in their estimation).

But Watson doesn't count?

Commercially, Watson was a joke from beginning to end. If their argument is that Watson’s failure indicates a machine that can at the very least convincingly lie to you will definitely fail to make money, that’s an insipid argument.

Yeah I was going to say the same thing ha. I get what they’re (the commenter) saying, but one could also argue IBM is putting their money where their mouth is by not investing.

I suspect the reality is that they missed the boat, as they have missed tens of other boats since the mainframe market dried up. I guess you could argue they came to the boat too early with their pants on backwards (i.e. Watson), and then left before it showed up. But it’s hard to tell from the outside.

Maybe that will turn out to be a good decision and Microsoft/Google/etc. will be crushed under the weight of hundreds of billions of dollars in write-offs in a few years. But that doesn’t mean they did it intentionally, or for the right reasons.

Totally. Just sort of mulling over possibilities. But I think you’re right it’s likely they just got it wrong

IBM is probably involved somewhere in the majority of things you interact with day to day

Yep. When a brand has tarnished itself enough, it makes sense for the brand to step back. Nowadays, we interact with their more popular properties, such as Redhat.