Because the cost of doing business in those markets is probably more than what they could get for the product. And if they lower the price in that market, it might devalue the product line as whole and potentially causes brand damage.
The brand isn’t the one doing the business. It’s the 3rd party who we’ve already established is unscrupulous. So why should they care about the brand value?
I'm at a large company that is building connections between all of its different financial systems. The primary problem being faced is NOT speed to code things, the primary problem at large companies is getting business aligned with tech (communication) and getting alignment across all the different orgs on data ownership, access, and security. AI currently doesn't solve any of this. Throw in needing to deal with regulation/SOX compliance and all the progress you think AI might make, just doesn't align with the problem domains.
Totally makes sense. Turns out that a lot of what Palantir's "Forward Deployed Engineers" do is navigating these bureaucratic and political obstacles to get access to the data: https://nabeelqu.co/reflections-on-palantir -- which may be Palantir's real secret sauce, rather than the tech itself.
Agreed. The SWEs already receive a steady supply of conflicting demands from every possible business unit; the value add for these teams is a working PMO to prioritize the requests coming in.
This is also generally true for all mid to large businesses I've ever worked at.
The code they write is highly domain-specific, implementation speed is not the bottleneck, and their payroll for developers is nothing compared to the rest of the business.
I haven't seen what you're suggesting from a CEO at a large company that's primary business is non-software related. At some point in a businesses life theres an accumulation of so many disparate needs and systems that there can be many many layers of cross org needs for fulfilling business processes. This stuff is messy.
I think I saw it asserted that its easier for a new company, which definitely makes sense as you don't carry along all the baggage.
I work in large projects like this, the CEO doesn't get involved in the little "computer project" except during the project kickoff. Even then, it's just to "say a few words about the people I admire on this team". In large global companies these projects are delegated 3 or 4 levels below the CEO at the highest.
Makes me wonder if they are getting ripe for disruption. Not by a new business model, but a new operating model where a CEO will be tech/ai-aware and push through all these kinds of things.
Maybe a bit pedantic, but if you're streaming it, then you're still downloading portions of it, yah? Just not persisting the whole thing locally before viewing it.
Edit: Looks like this is a slight discrepancy between the HN title and the GitHub description.
Yes, I agree. I'm not persisting the WSI locally, which creates a smoother user experience. But I do need to transfer tiles from server to client. They are stored in an LRU cache and evicted if not used.
> Unlike the current situation in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority (and/or confronting armed police).
Not quite sure what you're referring to here, you can speak out all you want on political matters in the US. -Especially- in the context of criticizing the president.
For what it's worth, I have lived in, and currently spend a lot of time in, both places. You're both very obviously wrong.
There is a serious problem in the US. There is also a serious (though different) problem in the UK. The problem in the US is the chilling effect of the vindictiveness and lawlessness of the current regime. I will not elaborate on this because it's too complicated to communicate effectively in a forum post.
The problem in the UK is a set of vaguely and arbitrarily specified-and-enforced laws that enable the criminalization of 'grossly offensive" speech. There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a 'grossly offensive' communication -- all enforcement is arbitrary and thus can be abused. Whether is it actually abused in any widespread fashion is irrelevant.
- Communications Act 2003 (Section 127): Makes it an offense to send messages via public electronic networks (internet, phone, social media) that are "grossly offensive," indecent, obscene, or menacing, or to cause annoyance/anxiety.
- Malicious Communications Act 1988 (Section 1): Applies to sending letters or electronic communications with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety, containing indecent or grossly offensive content.
I'm still not quite sure how UK law impacts the US. I was hoping for explicit examples of someone actually being removed from power because they were critical of the president. I think that would be pretty big news and the closest I have heard was one of the ex-military standing congresspeople being threatened with reduced military benefits, or legal action, but not actually anyone being removed from a position.
Another (higher profile) example are the baseless threats of criminal indictments against Jerome Powell -- it is impossible to argue that these threats have been made for any reason other than that he, as a nonpartisan official, defied the president's demands to execute his duties as fed chair in such a way (that is, poorly) so as to put a temporary thumb on the scale for the current admin.
The more important question, I think, is how many folk in explicitly nonpartisan functions are choosing not to break step with the current admin for fear of some sort of (likely professional) reprisal. I'm not alleging that they're disappearing dissenters or anything that inflammatory, but it would be intellectually dishonest to contend that there isn't a long, well-documented trail of malfeasance here.
For some larger meetings during the pandemic, managers started scheduling them 5 minutes after to give people time to join, but because people's reminders triggered at the same relative time all it meant was people started joining meetings 5 minutes later negating any perceived benefit.
Absolutely and first iterations of steam hardware survey showed mostly XP users, but still 5-7% win 98 install base, which they maintained compatibility with for quite a while, that's just to say that I can see why they might not have used those specific windows APIs at the start.
Nope, you're on a LAN, and usually the router has a firewall that blocks inbound connections by default. Some OSs (like Windows) also have their own by-default firewalls that block connections from hosts on different networks out of the box.
How does company X dependant on company Y product beat company Y in what is essentially just small UI differences? Can cursor even do anything that vscode can't right now?
> Can cursor even do anything that vscode can't right now?
Right now VSCode can do things that Cursor cannot, but mostly because of the market place. If Cursor invests money into the actual IDE part of the product I can see them eclipsing Microsoft at the game. They definitely have the momentum. But at least some of the folks I follow on Twitter that were die-hard Cursor users have moved back to VSCode for a variety of reasons over the last few months, so not sure.
Microsoft itself though is currently kinda mismanaging the entire product range between GitHub, VS Code and copilot, so I would not be surprised if Cursor manages to capitalize on this.
GitHub, Copilot and VS Code are I believe the same org. Or at least, that’s what the branding implies. Copilot / VS Code lost all headstart and barely catch up, GitHub is currently largely being seen as a leader less organization that has lost it’s direction. The recent outrage about pricing changes being an excellent example of this.
Are you referring to the fact that 7up/Dr pepper are distributed by pepsico? They still have historically been independent from the big 2 as far as product branding since inception, most recently being owned by Schweppes.
Dr. Pepper is distributed by Coke in some states/countries, Pepsi in others, and by its own distribution network in like 30 US states. A friend likened it, not without a certain verisimilitude, to the result of the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494.
I think they were just giving an example, and had assumed each separate flavor was a separate company, but happened to choose a bad one with 7up as it is a different beast then the rest.
reply