> This is super common with startups and is usually called an orderly shutdown
Perhaps now, but during the Zero Interest Rate era, the received wisdom was founders ought to keep going until there bank account was empty, in the hope that they may salvage returns for investors. Vendors, partners, clients and employees would be screwed, naturally, but it didn't matter because VC preferred it because losing all the money in a desperate gamble was preferable to lending money to startups at 0%
> I ended up just filing a few issues and moved on to other things.
This is the most valuable contribution you had time for, hopefully with a minimum-viable bug reproduction.
Drive-by patches/PRs are usually a net-negative because the maintainer has to reverse-engineer the intent from GenAI code, and then make changes to have it fit in with the rest of project.
> It felt weird to just file issues when my LLM had already spent a lot of time root-causing and fixing the issues
There are countless ways to fix any issue, and only a few right ways (subjectively). The maintainers' role is to decide which ways are right for their project. You shouldn't worry too much about "wasting" code you already generated, GenAI made that step very cheap, but did little for taste and roadmapping.
ITT: "What is "coordination", and why is it bullshit?"
The lack of humility among tech folk is astounding. Why dont you ask yourself why the 10x'ers/doers/high-impact people aren't setting up their 3-trillion dollar company if they are so darn effective by themselves? Perhaps becaus they'll need the "bureaucracy" to interface woth the rest of the world to get things like "money" and "contracts" and deal with the legal system...as well as ensuring their work is aligned and cohesive.
Apple's concern is at the intersection of DMA and privacy. Apple is worried that other parties having the same level of data access that Apple has today would create privacy issues. This is because Apple's current privacy posture is "Trust Apple with your data" rather than "Trust no one with your data - including Apple", but that would be less profitable, but would have prevented the request for an exception because Apple would be on an equal footing with everyone else, if all they could see was client-encrypted data indistinguishable from random bytes.
That's the crux of my point; Apple could have solved this on day zero if they had a consumer-centered threat-model and/or considered user data to be a liability rather than a hook for service subscriptions.
> The problem is the work it takes to solve it isn’t worth the hit to time to market. (And possibly even the cost.)
I don't consider this to be a problem, but the DMA working as intended and preventing gatekeepers from competing unfairly.
> Apple could have solved this on day zero if they had a consumer-centered threat-model
Consumer-centered threat model is perfectly well served with on-device models and Private Cloud. What isn’t is interoperability.
> the DMA working as intended and preventing gatekeepers from competing unfairly
I agree. And at the end of the day, Apple is following the law. I am sympathetic to their position, however, that this isn’t something worth building and optimizing for at launch. If we wanted to be rose tinted, EU consumers will get a fully-baked product. (EU developers get somewhat screwed, but I suppose their offshore offices could start.)
> The founders retaining voting control has worked out fine for Alphabet shareholders.
Only after the cofounders brought in veteran "adult supervision" who offered guided the company with a steady hand, while Larry and Sergei were safely in their moonshot hobby project play-pens, away from the core products - an arrangement that would greatly benefit shareholders in Musk companies.
It's not "fake" - it's cultural differences where what is intended to come across as polite by Americans[1] can be seen as insincere by people from elsewhere. On the flip side, Americans often view foreign behavior that's intended to be neutral as unfriendly, uncaring or cold.
1. e.g. lots of smiling, use of superlatives like "great"/"amazing" to describe mediocre items/effort/results
Big labs ripped videos off YouTube without caring about the ToS, and grabbed as much published literature they could get their hands on, regardless of legality (Books3, The Pile). The goal of "democratizing human knowledge" by way of thinking machines is far too noble to worry about frivolities like copyright and authorial consent, they said. Until it was their output being exploited, and their earning potential threatened.
> Esp check the Hallucination rate for Deepseek - it's not good.
For strongly-typed coding tasks - and I imagine other tasks that have cheap validity checks: agentic harnesses and thinking tokens are an effective foil against hallucinations, at the expense of time. If a model hallucinates an API, compilation will fail and the error fed back into the machine so it can try again, in a two-steps-forward-one-step-back dance that is unreasonably effective. Given the price delta, it is often more cost effective to let the weaker model spiral towards a solution with many "Oh, wait..." turns
> Or pay a guard a fair wage and comp them the $0.20 or whatever for each bullet.
I think $0.20 per bullet is far too little, considering the medical expenses the guard will face when getting the bullets removed after they are shot for copper.
Perhaps now, but during the Zero Interest Rate era, the received wisdom was founders ought to keep going until there bank account was empty, in the hope that they may salvage returns for investors. Vendors, partners, clients and employees would be screwed, naturally, but it didn't matter because VC preferred it because losing all the money in a desperate gamble was preferable to lending money to startups at 0%
reply