Employees also have no moat, and that is not unique to OAI. You either work as much as the other people on your team or you get replaced by one of the many people eager to work harder than you for that money.
This assumes a constant stream of an available workforce. Meanwhile, in the US where OpenAI is based, scrutiny and pressure from the current administration is making it harder to hire at their largest locations.
Or: you realise that it was the pet project of someone who is now in charge and no matter how wrong/broken/costly it is, there will never be political will to allow change until they're gone.
Yep I hate it. I much rather interact with peers than subordinates. I want people to challenge me and my opinion. I hate making casual comments and everyone in the room is silent as if it was the word of god.
Maybe this is sacrilege but I find audiobooks help for this because the narrator just keeps going with little effort on my part. Even if I miss things it’s okay, and getting through it helps get into it.
My friend who recommended it to me told me the best way to consume it was via audiobook even though he prefers to read. He said it's the one book he prefers that way.
Scala just seems to have an ever changing identity. Scala 3 drastically changed syntax and now they're trying to move the language from monads to effects.
Scala 3 didn't "drastically" change syntax -- most of the changes also have automatic rewrites with appropriate compiler switches. The effects story is still pretty experimental, but there's also improvements to 'effects' syntax (for-comprehensions) in "preview" for 3.7.
As long as the 'effects' work will let me distinguish pure/non-pure, I'd be happy to use just that bit and stick with ZIO/TypeLevel's ecosystem... which will probably be supported forever, regardless of whatever happens with the "effects" stuff.
Perhaps the focus of the team behind the compiler has changed over the years - but there is still backwards compatibility (via TaSTy), the new syntax changes are not mandatory (for the moment) and when they do become so there will be a fully automatic (and correct) rewrite. There are new libraries exploring "direct style" but you can still use cats-effect or ZIO if you prefer. If anything, Scala has a "too much choice" problem (and kinda a community one).
Backward compat has nothing to do with the size of the stdlib, AFAIK. It seems you want to pick on a different part of the language ecosystem.
It's true this a matter of taste, but also worth noting that the OCaml compiler devs have made it very clear they are open to well-motivated extensions of the stdlib, and it has been growing at a decent clip in the last few years.
The size of the stdlib has a huge impact on backwards compatibility and how much pain is caused by maintaining said compatibility for the authors of the stdlib. I mean... it's hard enough for just any regular library to do that sensibly. So much so that semver (misguided as it is) was invented.
IIRC Ocaml always compiles everything from source which has its advantages, but even that is a can of worms. (And sometimes binary compatibility can actually be easier, see e.g. Scala.)
Uber was in the red for like 10 years, and burned 31B, and complaints of it popping were constant. But here we are with it still going and now profitable.
Most coding I do in my spare time, I still do in the context of my jobs’ domain, just because there’s unlimited problems there to work on and I’m already up to speed.. plus not everything for an employer is “narrow business focus”.
reply