When I looked at this, the first thing which popped into my mind came from the 95th percentile graph... third one I think.
If you're a CTO, CEO, CxO, you have direct, in depth knowledge to how the company is doing. You also likely have insight into how that translates into free capital to spend on wages. Many companies are not public, and even when companies are, earning reports aren't easy for a line worker to fully understand.
So if you have that knowledge, it's much easier to push back when someone says a wage increase isn't possible. Such as the board, or the CEO (eg, if CTO, or whatever).
This by no means "makes it fair", it's simply that the inequality may be from knowledge, and therefore bargaining power.
Another aspect of things, is that every CxO class worker can agree, their knowledge is very very important, irreplaceable in fact! Upper management, you see, is quite valuable, as of course (from their perspective) "I'm irreplaceable and valuable!". Who doesn't think they have value, after all?
But.. those line workers, or even those engineers, well.. they're like cogs. One as another.
Some might attribute malice to the above thoughts by CxO class individuals, but it can also simply be driven by self-belief in innate value, and by good old ego.
It's already here, mobile OSes are just computers with ton of guardrails and you can't do whatever you want with it, for the sake of security. I mean we almost got an Android where you can't install the APK you want.
I use Angular 2+, and I find it quite pleasant to use. I also like how they make the framework evolve. Not scared to have opinions (back when it came out, Typescript was barely a thing). Never got into React (but didn't try that hard to get into it), but it seems like it's a huge bloated mess.
For me the most amazing thing about Sebastian Lague is how the youtube algorithm can screw you up. He used to do millions of view on his videos, and now he barely makes half a million. Well it might also be because of covid, and everyone at home getting interesting in random stuff.
I think this is just a matter of visuals. His videos that are doing well show many beautiful things. Just looking at the thumbnails and the view counts gives that away already.
Well not really, since the board game itself doesn't need a paid human to work. It's been crafted by a human, but video games are also crafted by (arguably many more) humans. The closest would be escape games, or larger scale games maybe
Zig has some advantages for such projects, especially in the beginning.
Among them:
- much easier to iterate on (due to the language being simpler and compilation much faster)
- native C/C++ interops (Zig can compile C and C++ and mix it with Zig) which is crucial for a node-replacement runtime that runs an open source JS engine
- fewer dependencies and trivial static linking
I guess that now that they've been acquired by Anthropic there's this combination of having both in-house Rust talent, AI which does better on Rust, and the funding and resources necessary to undertake such a migration.
Also: Anthropic bought Bun to not depend on node.js. But now they are dependent on Zig which is a moving target and is hostile to them because not accepting their contributions.
Without access to Opus, it seems to me that the limited context size you get isn't worth the subsidy, especially once you blow through the included requests, the cost seems kind of hard to predict because it's 'request' based not token based.
I just opted for ChatGPT Pro; I'm trying to take advantage of the increased usage limits they are offering, and from what I heard, Claude Pro was also having bad rate limiting for many people.
I cringe every time I read this "punch card" narrative. We are not at this stage at all. You are comparing deterministic stuff and LLMs which are not deterministic and may or may not give you what you want. In fact I personally barely use autonomous Agents in my brownfield codebase because they generate so much unmaintainable slop.
No it is not. Yes it could be for your average everyday developer but if someone can run site with millions of active users alone, there is no difference in salary based on where the developer stays. Does Mistral pays $100k salary to researchers?
People working in non profits typically earn less, yes. In general, salary is not a function of how praiseworthy or important or even hard the work is. People who work for non profits have pay cut, because basically they are willing to be paid less in exchange of doing something they see as meaningful.
(Excluding purely "money washing for local mafia and politicians" non profits.)
Dude, Lichess is entirely funded by donations. There's only so much money to go around.
And Thibault iirc is the kind of person that's not terribly interested in earning lots of money. Of he wanted to, I'm sure he could make bajillions elsewhere in tech, because he's that good. But he apparently prefers to only work for a "measly" upper middle class salary and doing something he's really passionate about. And I thank him for it, because lichess is awesome.
Or full time. In some countries, those are pretty decent salaries. I earn €50k in one of the poorer European countries and that puts me in the top ~8%.
I thought so too, but another entry in their sheet is "Sysadmin (part time)" for $18k/yr. So either they forgot to put part time in parens, or they're paid full time wages. I wonder which...
Quite amazing to see that "French social security / pension contrib" are almost the same as their total server costs, and there is loads of them.
With just a few employees, it is quite interesting to compare how much do some of these contributions cost, effectively affecting only a person or two, compared to a service like Lichess which is used by 5-10 million of users each month.
Even my diamond platinum extreme chess.com subscription (or however the third-best tier of a dozen or so is called) has much less functionality than Lichess's only tier.
True
However a french chess streamer I follow had an interesting take: since Lichess is all free, all the content is computer generated, or low quality. Apparently, some content even was just stolen content from other paid platforms. His take is basically that Chess.com gives out money to many chess actors (teachers, coaches, book writers) while lichess is not helping the whole ecosystem make money. Anyways competition is good.
That’s fine by me: Not everything needs to be about money.
> Anyways competition is good.
I agree, and I have no issue with competition paid or free, but I’d have hoped that the paid one would at least also offer a better product.
I’m also to pay for chess courses! Chess.com is just not worth the price to me. I like their narrated game reviews slightly better than Lichess’s purely centipawn-driven mistake practice system, but everything else about their interface is much worse.
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
I mean, it's cherry picked, but still funny to see all those charts.
reply