C# used to be my favorite language, but having spent a lot of time in Rust using its algebraic data types + match statements + Option & Result types, then returning to C# to build a few moderately involved libraries, I'm horrified by the enums and null & error handling that I used to deal with all the time.
I knew that enums were really just named integer values and nothing more, but I had forgotten than you can build a perfectly legal enum from an integer out of the bounds of the enum's range. And a switch statement is non-exhaustive. (As I said, it had been a while since I used C# extensively.) What would have been a few lines of code in Rust turned into dozens to try to exhaustively protect against invalid input.
I know C# is a mature language that has been around for decades, but how janky everything feels comparatively really shocked me. I only very briefly played with F# about a decade ago, but my guess is that I could try to pick that up and call F# from C#, getting much better ergonomics with a combination of the two.
> I had forgotten than you can build a perfectly legal enum from an integer out of the bounds of the enum's range. And a switch statement is non-exhaustive
These are solved by the new feature described in the article that we're commenting on right now. They're giving us unions and exhaustive switch. Ctrl+F "canonical way to work with unions" in the article to see an example. One of the best parts about C# is they never stop bringing useful features from other languages back home to us in C#. It makes for a large language with a lot of features, but if we really want something, we'll eventually get it in C#.
And one of the worst is how long it takes them to implement even simple things. There are parts of the language (Expression) that are 20 years behind the rest and they don’t see the problem.
> Amazon was unprofitable for over a decade, and they were public.
Amazon was unprofitable because they poured their revenue into growth. On paper, they were in the red, but everyone - especially investors - saw what was going to happen, given their trajectory.
Is it the case that any of these AI companies are actually making a ton of money and growing accordingly? AFAICT, we've just got [a] big players like Google that can subsidize AI in the hopes of waiting everyone else out and [b] private companies raising capital in the hopes that when the market returns to rationality, they may be solvent.
> On paper, they were in the red, but everyone - especially investors - saw what was going to happen, given their trajectory.
As I recall, no, Wall Street and public shareholders were getting pretty antsy over AMZN earnings, which is why Bezos famously said "We are willing to be misunderstood for long periods of time."
The same thing is playing out today: insiders and early investors (presumably privy to information we don't have) see the trajectory of the frontier AI labs, but Wall Street and public shareholders see only the losses. This is why at every earnings report the hyperscalers simultaneously 1) post record revenues and earnings, 2) announce even greater CapEx spending and AI investments, and hence 3) get punished by the stock market.
Clearly all the AI players are willing to be misunderstood for long periods of time.
Yes that is exactly what is happening. OpenAI and Anthropic are the fastest growing companies by revenue ever and their gross profit margins are healthy.
> HSBC Global Investment Research projects that OpenAI still won’t be profitable by 2030, even though its consumer base will grow by that point to comprise some 44% of the world’s adult population (up from 10% in 2025). Beyond that, it will need at least another $207 billion of compute to keep up with its growth plans.
This article is from six months ago. Was HSBC wrong; did something dramatically change in the last six months; is OpenAI not, in fact, profitable?, or are they in fact doing well but doing a huge investment (as was the case with Amazon 25ish years ago)?
I genuinely do not know, but my impression is that they're burning investment capital trying to compete with others' investment capital and Google's bottomless pockets.
and to make matters worse, they are massively over-valued.
Whoever buys the stock at a richly priced 1tn at ipo is a bozo lmao. I know I know, index funds will be forced to hold it bypassing the 1 year rule. Disaster already.
Then why do they constantly need more and more funding from VC and Google and MS and NVIDIA? Why is it all circular dealing? Why aren’t there smaller AI startups running these smaller, “profitable” models?
I think my browsing habits may have changed, as I rarely see captchas. However, just the other day, my son was frustrated by one that he said had taken him fifteen or more tries, and he still hadn't succeeded.
Yeah, that is a very common complaint about Google's recaptcha. If they don't like you, they actually just send you through an infinite failure loop, even though you keep solving them correctly.
> The average number of pull requests per dev per week increased with all this spend. From 4.2 to 5.1.
That's it? I've seen people that are consistently putting out four PRs per day. I don't/can't even code review them. So much of what we do is now just rubber-stamping PRs. We were even told that we shouldn't be writing code by hand anymore.
My son is taking an AP chem class - he's doing really well, super interested in the subject. It's a difficult class, to be sure. Many of his peers are just goofing off and don't understand things. My son regularly tells me about people in his lab group that are cheating off his papers (and, I think, even his test). He tries to cover up answers, but it's not always possible to do.
What is even more frustrating is that the teacher knows this and does nothing about it. Maybe one could argue that, in the end, these students fail to learn and will get their just rewards. But it seems to me that the lack of immediate corrective action (eg, an F on an assignment) is a failing of the system.
What is even more frustrating is that the teacher knows this and does nothing about it.
When teachers are evaluated based on how students perceive them, and are in turn evaluated by others based on the grades their students receive, there's a perverse incentive/conflict of interest for them to allow cheating.
If I were your son, next exam I would physically move my desk to the corner of the room out of protest. He should also report everyone he sees cheating.
My wife and I were just talking about this the other day. She lucid dreams very regularly, and she says she spends a lot of that time flying.
I, on the other hand, never lucid dreamed, so a few years ago, I spent a lot of time journaling and doing wakefulness tests to see if I could learn to do it. One night, I did -- I was dreaming and then had an 'awakening' in which I realized I was asleep. Finally, a lucid dream! Naturally, the first thing I did was start to fly. About five seconds in, I told myself, "Wait a sec... People can't fly." That took the wind out of my sails, so to speak, and I couldn't fly again in the dream. I believe I woke shortly after, too.
I keep wanting to get back to it and try it out, but I'd love a more efficient way to get there instead of constant wakefulness checks and first-thing-in-the-morning journaling.
> Wait a sec... People can't fly." That took the wind out of my sails, so to speak, and I couldn't fly again in the dream
There is a Peter Pan tendency, at least to my dreams. You know you can’t fly. But then you remember you have, and believing it’s true makes it happens.
That’s what I was getting at with the film-script effect. I’ll be in a bind and then realize that there “must” be a solution in a particular form, otherwise the dream wouldn’t make sense, and that sort of conjures that thing into existence.
Maybe fortunately, maybe sadly, the one thing I’ve not been able to do is conjure up lost loved ones. I’ll get a bunch of puppies who know my dog, but he just couldn’t show up, or I’ll get strangers or living loved ones who know my grandmother or best friend; they’re just constantly indisposed.
My first and really only experience with Kubernetes was a project I did about six years ago. I was tasked with building a thing that did some lightly distributed compute using Python + Dask. I was able to cobble together a functioning (internal) product, and we went to production.
Not long after, I found that the pods were CONSTANTLY getting into some weird state where K8s couldn't rebuild, so I had to forcibly delete the pods and rebuild. I blamed myself, not knowing much about K8s, but it also was extremely frustrating because, as I understood/understand it, the entire purpose of Kubernetes is to ensure a reliable deployment of some combination of pods. If it couldn't do that and instead I had to manually rebuild my cluster, then what was the point?
In the end, I ended up nuking the entire project -- K8s, Docker containers, Python, and Dask -- and instead went with a single Rust binary deployed to an Azure Function. The result was faster (by probably an order of magnitude), less memory, cheaper (maybe -80% cost), and much more reliable (I think around four nines).
Years ago, there was a TED Talk[0] from the guy that started Open Source Ecology[1]. The TED Talk was really cool, but I haven't really followed what they did. It sounded promising to have open-source technology for use in this space.
I absolutely love this vision. He's still working towards the goal. It seems that his vision has problems scaling up though. He seems to mostly still drive this himself.
> Car and Driver estimates that the vehicle will run at least $60,000. Ram’s gas-powered truck, meanwhile, starts at $42,000.
I don't know how much of this is attributable to truck culture, how much is newfangled tech, and how much is the changing landscape of capitalism, but this drives me nuts.
Until two years ago. The most expensive car my family had bought was US$20k, a then four year old CR-V. Last year, we bought a then two year old ID.4 at a little over $30k. That was a bit of a tough pill for me to swallow, but I wanted a vehicle with less maintenance than an ICE car and less fuel cost. Admittedly, than $30k will take a long time to recover (but electricity is certainly much cheaper than gas, especially today).
But a $60k vehicle? There is no way I'm going to rationalize that kind of purchase. I already said 'no' to that when Ford hiked the price of the Lightning and my only option was an upper-tier model around that price point.
reply