hackslash dot org

Google Is Winning on Every AI Front

Posted: 2025-04-12 03:58:50

The article argues that Google is dominating the AI landscape, excelling in research, product integration, and cloud infrastructure. While OpenAI grabbed headlines with ChatGPT, Google possesses a deeper bench of AI talent, foundational models like PaLM 2 and Gemini, and a wider array of applications across search, Android, and cloud services. Its massive data centers and custom-designed TPU chips provide a significant infrastructure advantage, enabling faster training and deployment of increasingly complex models. The author concludes that despite the perceived hype around competitors, Google's breadth and depth in AI position it for long-term leadership.

The author of "Google Is Winning on Every AI Front" posits that Google is currently dominating the field of artificial intelligence across a comprehensive spectrum of endeavors. This dominance, they argue, is not merely a matter of perception but is demonstrably evidenced by Google's superior performance in several key areas. The article meticulously delineates Google's advancements and strategic advantages in foundational model development, specifically highlighting their groundbreaking work with large language models (LLMs) and their prowess in creating highly specialized, application-specific models. It underscores the significance of Google's proprietary Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), custom-designed hardware optimized for the computationally demanding tasks inherent in AI model training and deployment, providing them with a substantial infrastructural edge over competitors.

Furthermore, the author emphasizes Google's deep integration of AI throughout its existing product ecosystem. From enhancing search functionality with AI-driven features to leveraging AI for personalized recommendations in various services like YouTube and Google Maps, the company has seamlessly woven artificial intelligence into the fabric of its offerings, enriching user experience and further solidifying its market position. This extensive integration, the article contends, provides Google with an invaluable feedback loop, allowing them to continuously refine their AI models based on real-world usage data from a massive user base, a crucial advantage in iterative development and optimization.

Beyond product integration, the piece explores Google's contributions to the open-source AI community, portraying the company as a significant driver of innovation in the field. It acknowledges Google's release of numerous research papers, open-source tools, and pre-trained models, fostering collaboration and contributing to the broader advancement of AI technology. This open-source engagement, the author suggests, not only benefits the wider AI community but also strategically positions Google as a thought leader and reinforces their influence within the field.

Finally, the article concludes by asserting that Google's holistic approach to AI, encompassing research, development, infrastructure, product integration, and open-source contributions, creates a powerful synergistic effect. This multifaceted strategy, they argue, has propelled Google to the forefront of the AI landscape, establishing a formidable lead that will be challenging for competitors to overcome in the foreseeable future. The author paints a picture of a company not just participating in the AI revolution but actively shaping its trajectory, solidifying its role as a dominant force in the evolving world of artificial intelligence.

Summary of Comments ( 523 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43661235

Hacker News users generally disagreed with the premise that Google is winning on every AI front. Several commenters pointed out that Google's open-sourcing of key technologies, like Transformer models, allowed competitors like OpenAI to build upon their work and surpass them in areas like chatbots and text generation. Others highlighted Meta's contributions to open-source AI and their competitive large language models. The lack of public access to Google's most advanced models was also cited as a reason for skepticism about their supposed dominance, with some suggesting Google's true strength lies in internal tooling and advertising applications rather than publicly demonstrable products. While some acknowledged Google's deep research bench and vast resources, the overall sentiment was that the AI landscape is more competitive than the article suggests, and Google's lead is far from insurmountable.

The Hacker News post "Google Is Winning on Every AI Front" sparked a lively discussion with a variety of viewpoints on Google's current standing in the AI landscape. Several commenters challenge the premise of the article, arguing that Google's dominance isn't as absolute as portrayed.

One compelling argument points out that while Google excels in research and has a vast data trove, its ability to effectively monetize AI advancements and integrate them into products lags behind other companies. Specifically, the commenter mentions Microsoft's successful integration of AI into products like Bing and Office 365 as an example where Google seems to be struggling to keep pace, despite having arguably superior underlying technology. This highlights a key distinction between research prowess and practical application in a competitive market.

Another commenter suggests that Google's perceived lead is primarily due to its aggressive marketing and PR efforts, creating a perception of dominance rather than reflecting a truly unassailable position. They argue that other companies, particularly in specialized AI niches, are making significant strides without the same level of publicity. This raises the question of whether Google's perceived "win" is partly a result of skillfully managing public perception.

Several comments discuss the inherent limitations of large language models (LLMs) like those Google champions. These commenters express skepticism about the long-term viability of LLMs as a foundation for truly intelligent systems, pointing out issues with bias, lack of genuine understanding, and potential for misuse. This perspective challenges the article's implied assumption that Google's focus on LLMs guarantees future success.

Another line of discussion centers around the open-source nature of many AI advancements. Commenters argue that the open availability of models and tools levels the playing field, allowing smaller companies and researchers to build upon existing work and compete effectively with giants like Google. This counters the narrative of Google's overwhelming dominance, suggesting a more collaborative and dynamic environment.

Finally, some commenters focus on the ethical considerations surrounding AI development, expressing concerns about the potential for misuse of powerful AI technologies and the concentration of such power in the hands of a few large corporations. This adds an important dimension to the discussion, shifting the focus from purely technical and business considerations to the broader societal implications of Google's AI advancements.

In summary, the comments on Hacker News present a more nuanced and critical perspective on Google's position in the AI field than the original article's title suggests. They highlight the complexities of translating research into successful products, the role of public perception, the limitations of current AI technologies, the impact of open-source development, and the crucial ethical considerations surrounding AI development.

American Disruption

permalink

Posted: 2025-04-09 12:24:36

Ben Thompson argues that the U.S.'s dominant position in technology is being challenged not by specific countries, but by a broader shift towards "digital sovereignty." This trend sees countries prioritizing national control over their digital economies, exemplified by data localization laws, industrial policy favoring domestic companies, and the rise of regional technology ecosystems. While the U.S. still holds significant advantages, particularly in its entrepreneurial culture and vast internal market, these protectionist measures threaten to fragment the internet and diminish the network effects that have fueled American tech giants. This burgeoning fragmentation presents both a challenge and an opportunity: American companies will need to adapt to a more localized world, potentially losing some global scale, but also gaining new opportunities to cater to specific national needs and preferences.

Ben Thompson, in his Stratechery post entitled "American Disruption," meticulously dissects the evolving landscape of technological innovation and its profound implications for the global balance of power, particularly focusing on the dynamic interplay between the United States and China. He posits that while China has demonstrated remarkable proficiency in iterative innovation, rapidly refining and deploying existing technologies at scale, the United States retains a distinct, albeit less visible, advantage in foundational, disruptive innovation – the creation of entirely new technological paradigms.

Thompson elaborates on this distinction by highlighting China's impressive achievements in areas like high-speed rail and mobile payments, accomplishments achieved through focused execution and massive investment in existing frameworks. These advancements, while significant, represent improvements within established technological domains rather than the genesis of fundamentally new ones. He contrasts this with the United States’ historical and continuing role as the birthplace of groundbreaking technologies like the internet, the personal computer, and more recently, generative AI, which have reshaped entire industries and societal structures.

The author argues that this American propensity for disruptive innovation stems from a confluence of factors, including a culture that encourages risk-taking and tolerates failure, robust capital markets willing to fund ambitious, long-term projects with uncertain outcomes, and a deep reservoir of scientific and engineering talent fostered by world-class universities and research institutions. This ecosystem, he contends, allows the U.S. to not only conceive of but also effectively commercialize radical new technologies.

Further, Thompson explores the geopolitical ramifications of this technological divergence. He suggests that while China's mastery of iterative innovation allows for rapid economic growth and domestic market dominance, it also creates a degree of dependence on the underlying foundational technologies often originating in the U.S. This, he argues, gives the United States a significant, albeit often underappreciated, lever of influence in the global tech arena. Control over these foundational technologies, coupled with the ability to continuously generate new ones, translates into a form of strategic leverage that may prove decisive in the long-term competition between the two nations.

Finally, Thompson acknowledges the inherent uncertainties and potential challenges to American technological leadership, including the increasing competitiveness of other nations, the potential for internal policy missteps, and the ever-present risk of complacency. Nevertheless, he concludes with a cautiously optimistic outlook, arguing that the U.S., by virtue of its unique innovative ecosystem, remains well-positioned to maintain its position at the forefront of technological advancement and shape the future of the global economy. This enduring capacity for disruption, he suggests, forms a crucial pillar of American power and influence in the 21st century.

Summary of Comments ( 8 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43631276

HN commenters generally agree with the article's premise that the US is experiencing a period of significant disruption, driven by technological advancements and geopolitical shifts. Several highlight the increasing tension between US and Chinese technological development, particularly in AI, and the potential for this competition to reshape global power dynamics. Some express concern about the societal impact of these rapid changes, including job displacement and the widening wealth gap. Others discuss the US's historical role in fostering innovation and debate whether current political and economic structures are adequate to navigate the challenges ahead. A few commenters question the article's optimistic outlook on American adaptability, citing internal political divisions and the potential for further social fragmentation.

The Hacker News post titled "American Disruption" linking to a Stratechery article generated a moderate number of comments, sparking a discussion around the themes presented in the article concerning the evolving technological landscape and America's role in it. Several commenters engaged with the core ideas, offering both agreement and critique.

One of the most compelling lines of discussion revolved around the premise of the original article that American companies are leading in disruptive innovation. Some commenters challenged this assertion, pointing to the significant advancements and competitive presence of companies from other nations, particularly in areas like AI and electric vehicles. They argued that a more nuanced perspective is needed, acknowledging the globalized nature of innovation and the contributions of companies outside the US. This led to further discussion about the definition of "disruption" itself, with some suggesting the article's use of the term was too broad.

Another prominent thread focused on the article's emphasis on the role of regulation. Several commenters discussed the complexities of navigating regulation in the technology sector, particularly the balance between fostering innovation and addressing potential societal harms. Some argued that the US regulatory landscape is indeed a significant factor shaping the development and deployment of new technologies, while others expressed skepticism about the extent of its impact. This part of the conversation also touched upon the differences in regulatory approaches between the US and other countries, particularly China and the EU.

A few comments also engaged with the article's historical framing of American innovation, with some offering alternative perspectives on the historical narrative presented. They raised points about the role of government funding and research in past technological breakthroughs, suggesting a more complex picture than solely attributing innovation to private sector dynamism.

While there wasn't overwhelming consensus on any particular point, the comments collectively present a thoughtful engagement with the article's core arguments. The most compelling comments pushed back against the article's central premise, offering counterpoints and alternative interpretations that enriched the discussion. They brought in a broader global perspective and explored nuances not fully addressed in the original piece, making them valuable contributions to the conversation. Notably, the discussion remained largely civil and focused on the substantive issues raised by the article.

What Killed Innovation?

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-25 13:26:01

The blog post "What Killed Innovation?" argues that the current stagnation in technological advancement isn't due to a lack of brilliant minds, but rather a systemic shift towards short-term profits and risk aversion. This is manifested in several ways: large companies prioritizing incremental improvements and cost-cutting over groundbreaking research, investors favoring predictable returns over long-term, high-risk ventures, and a cultural obsession with immediate gratification hindering the patience required for true innovation. Essentially, the pursuit of maximizing shareholder value and quarterly earnings has created an environment hostile to the long, uncertain, and often unprofitable journey of disruptive innovation.

The blog post "What Killed Innovation?" by Shirley Wu, published in a speculative future date of February 2025, expounds upon a perceived decline in groundbreaking innovation, attributing it to a confluence of interconnected societal and technological factors. Ms. Wu postulates that the current environment, heavily influenced by large language models (LLMs) and pervasive artificial intelligence, fosters a climate of risk aversion and homogenization. She argues that the readily available, algorithmically-generated content, while proficient and often impressive, tends towards iterative improvements rather than genuinely novel concepts. This, she explains, is due to the inherent nature of these models, which are trained on existing data and therefore predisposed to replicating and refining pre-existing patterns, rather than venturing into uncharted territories of thought.

Furthermore, the author elucidates the impact of this phenomenon on the human creative process. She contends that the ubiquity of readily available, AI-generated solutions discourages individuals from engaging in deep, original thought and undertaking the arduous process of developing truly innovative ideas. The perceived ease and efficiency of leveraging AI tools, while beneficial in some contexts, ultimately stifles the intrinsic human motivation to explore, experiment, and challenge conventional wisdom. This, she argues, creates a feedback loop, where the reliance on AI further reinforces the dominance of existing paradigms and limits the potential for disruptive innovation.

The post also examines the role of venture capital and the broader financial ecosystem in this perceived stagnation. Ms. Wu suggests that the pressure on startups to demonstrate rapid growth and profitability, coupled with the perceived safety of investing in AI-driven solutions, leads to a prioritization of incremental advancements over long-term, high-risk ventures. This risk-averse investment strategy, she posits, further exacerbates the trend towards iterative development and reinforces the dominance of existing players, creating a significant barrier to entry for truly disruptive innovations. She laments this trend, arguing that it ultimately hinders the progress of science, technology, and society as a whole. In essence, the author paints a picture of a future where the pursuit of efficiency and optimization, facilitated by AI, has inadvertently stifled the very forces that drive transformative progress.

Summary of Comments ( 66 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43470971

HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that focusing on short-term gains stifles innovation. Several highlight the conflict between quarterly earnings pressures and long-term R&D, arguing that publicly traded companies are incentivized against truly innovative pursuits. Some point to specific examples of companies prioritizing incremental improvements over groundbreaking ideas due to perceived risk. Others discuss the role of management, suggesting that risk-averse leadership and a lack of understanding of emerging technologies contribute to the problem. A few commenters offer alternative perspectives, mentioning factors like regulatory hurdles and the difficulty of accurately predicting successful innovations. One commenter notes the inherent tension between needing to make money now and investing in an uncertain future. Finally, several commenters suggest that true innovation often happens outside of large corporations, in smaller, more agile environments.

The Hacker News post titled "What Killed Innovation?" links to an article discussing the potential stifling of innovation due to factors like large language models (LLMs) and risk aversion. The discussion in the comments section is fairly robust, with a number of users offering their perspectives.

Several commenters echo the author's concerns about risk aversion and the increasing dominance of large companies. One commenter argues that large companies, prioritizing shareholder value, tend to focus on incremental improvements rather than truly disruptive innovation. They suggest this leads to a landscape where groundbreaking ideas are less likely to be pursued. Another commenter points to the increasing prevalence of "me-too" products and features, indicating a lack of original thinking and a preference for copying proven successes.

The influence of large language models (LLMs) on innovation is also a recurring theme. One commenter expresses concern that LLMs, while powerful tools, might hinder genuine creativity by encouraging derivative works and limiting exploration of truly novel concepts. They suggest that relying too heavily on LLMs could lead to a homogenization of ideas. Another commenter counters this point, arguing that LLMs can actually boost innovation by automating tedious tasks and freeing up human creativity for more complex problems.

The conversation also touches on the role of regulation and bureaucracy in stifling innovation. One commenter argues that excessive regulation creates barriers to entry for smaller companies and startups, making it harder for them to compete with established players. Another commenter suggests that the current patent system, designed to protect intellectual property, can sometimes be used to stifle competition and prevent the development of new ideas.

Several commenters discuss the cultural aspects of innovation. One commenter argues that a culture of fear of failure can discourage individuals and organizations from taking risks, which is essential for true innovation. Another commenter suggests that the emphasis on short-term gains in modern business practices often comes at the expense of long-term investments in research and development, ultimately hindering innovation.

Finally, some commenters offer alternative perspectives on the supposed decline in innovation. One commenter argues that innovation is still happening, but it's happening in different areas than before. They point to fields like biotechnology and renewable energy as examples of areas where significant innovation is occurring. Another commenter suggests that the perception of a decline in innovation is partly due to a nostalgia for a past that wasn't necessarily as innovative as we remember it.

Overall, the comments section provides a diverse range of viewpoints on the factors influencing innovation, reflecting the complexity of the issue. While many share the author's concerns about risk aversion and the dominance of large companies, others offer counterarguments and alternative perspectives. The discussion highlights the multifaceted nature of innovation and the challenges involved in fostering a truly innovative environment.

Google’s two-year frenzy to catch up with OpenAI

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-21 15:44:51

Driven by the sudden success of OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google embarked on a two-year internal overhaul to accelerate its AI development. This involved merging DeepMind with Google Brain, prioritizing large language models, and streamlining decision-making. The result is Gemini, Google's new flagship AI model, which the company claims surpasses GPT-4 in certain capabilities. The reorganization involved significant internal friction and a rapid shift in priorities, highlighting the intense pressure Google felt to catch up in the generative AI race. Despite the challenges, Google believes Gemini represents a significant step forward and positions them to compete effectively in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

Within the hallowed halls of Google, a technological tempest has been brewing for two years, a frantic race against the rising tide of OpenAI's advancements in artificial intelligence. Wired magazine meticulously chronicles this internal struggle, portraying a company grappling with both its pioneering legacy in AI and the disruptive force of a smaller, nimbler competitor. The narrative paints a picture of a behemoth awakened, albeit somewhat belatedly, to the transformative potential of generative AI as embodied by OpenAI's ChatGPT.

The article details a two-pronged approach within Google. Initially, the company seemingly underestimated the public's appetite for conversational AI, viewing it more as a research novelty than a product with mass appeal. This led to a cautious, incremental approach, prioritizing safety and responsible development above rapid deployment. This hesitancy, the article argues, stemmed from a corporate culture steeped in a rigorous, academic approach to AI, coupled with a deep-seated fear of reputational damage from releasing a flawed or biased system. The consequence of this cautious approach was that Google, despite its vast resources and deep bench of AI talent, found itself seemingly lagging behind OpenAI in the public's perception of generative AI leadership.

However, the launch of ChatGPT and its subsequent viral adoption served as a potent catalyst within Google. The narrative shifts to one of intense internal mobilization, a "code red" scenario where engineers and researchers were galvanized into action. The article describes a company-wide effort, dubbed "Gemini," to consolidate Google's disparate AI research efforts into a cohesive and competitive response to OpenAI's offerings. This involved streamlining internal processes, fostering greater collaboration between teams, and prioritizing the development of a large language model (LLM) capable of rivaling, and ideally surpassing, the capabilities of ChatGPT.

The article underscores the immense pressure within Google to reclaim its perceived leadership in the field of AI. This pressure emanates not only from external competitors but also from internal anxieties about missing a pivotal technological shift. The article highlights the internal debates and strategic shifts within Google, including the merging of DeepMind and Google Brain, two previously separate AI research divisions, to consolidate expertise and resources. This merger is presented as a critical step in unifying Google's AI efforts and accelerating the development of Gemini.

Furthermore, the narrative delves into the technical challenges Google faces in scaling its AI models while maintaining accuracy and safety. The article discusses the complexities of training these massive models, the immense computational resources required, and the ongoing efforts to mitigate biases and prevent the generation of harmful or misleading content. The narrative emphasizes the delicate balancing act Google must perform between pushing the boundaries of AI innovation and ensuring responsible development.

Ultimately, the article frames Google's two-year journey as a race against time and a struggle to adapt to a rapidly evolving technological landscape. It concludes with a sense of anticipation for the upcoming unveiling of Gemini, positioning it as a pivotal moment for Google and a potential turning point in the ongoing competition for AI dominance. The narrative leaves the reader pondering whether Google can successfully leverage its vast resources and deep expertise to recapture the narrative and solidify its position as a leader in the age of generative AI.

Summary of Comments ( 114 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43437028

HN commenters discuss Google's struggle to catch OpenAI, attributing it to organizational bloat and risk aversion. Several suggest Google's internal processes stifled innovation, contrasting it with OpenAI's more agile approach. Some argue Google's vast resources and talent pool should have given them an advantage, but bureaucracy and a focus on incremental improvements rather than groundbreaking research held them back. The discussion also touches on Gemini's potential, with some expressing skepticism about its ability to truly surpass GPT-4, while others are cautiously optimistic. A few comments point out the article's reliance on anonymous sources, questioning its objectivity.

The Hacker News thread discussing the Wired article "Google’s two-year frenzy to catch up with OpenAI" contains a number of comments exploring various aspects of the AI race between Google and OpenAI.

Several commenters discuss the internal culture at Google and how it might be hindering their progress. One commenter suggests that Google's large size and established processes make it difficult to adapt quickly to a rapidly evolving field like AI. Another echoes this sentiment, pointing to the "inertia" of a large organization and the challenges in shifting resources and priorities. The idea of "innovation debt" is also mentioned, implying that past decisions and technical choices now limit Google's agility.

The pressure on Google from competing products like ChatGPT is a recurring theme. Commenters speculate about the internal anxieties at Google and the pressure to deliver a competitive product. Some believe Google's vast resources will ultimately allow them to catch up, while others are more skeptical, suggesting that OpenAI's more focused approach and quicker iteration cycles give them a significant advantage.

The conversation also delves into technical aspects. Some commenters debate the merits of different AI model architectures and training approaches. One user questions the effectiveness of Google combining Brain and DeepMind, suggesting that cultural differences and research philosophies might create friction. Another commenter discusses the importance of data and how OpenAI's access to vast datasets through its partnership with Microsoft gives them an edge.

Several comments touch on the broader implications of this AI race, including the ethical considerations of powerful AI models and the potential societal impact. One commenter expresses concern about the concentration of power in a few large tech companies.

A few commenters offer alternative perspectives. One suggests that Google’s true strength lies in its integration of AI across its existing product ecosystem, rather than in standalone products like Gemini. Another points out the potential for open-source models to disrupt the dominance of both Google and OpenAI.

Finally, some comments offer more anecdotal observations, reflecting on past experiences working at Google or in the AI field. These provide some context for the broader discussion but are less central to the main arguments.

Overall, the comments paint a picture of a complex and dynamic competition, highlighting the technical, cultural, and strategic challenges faced by Google in its pursuit of OpenAI. There's a mix of optimism and skepticism about Google's ability to close the gap, with many commenters recognizing the significant hurdles they face.

20 Years of YC / HN

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-18 01:52:18

Vicki Boykis reflects on 20 years of Y Combinator and Hacker News, observing how their influence has shifted the tech landscape. Initially fostering a scrappy, builder-focused community, YC/HN evolved alongside the industry, becoming increasingly intertwined with venture capital and prioritizing scale and profitability. This shift, driven by the pursuit of ever-larger funding rounds and exits, has led to a decline in the original hacker ethos, with less emphasis on individual projects and more on market dominance. While acknowledging the positive aspects of YC/HN's legacy, Boykis expresses concern about the homogenization of tech culture and the potential stifling of truly innovative, independent projects due to the pervasive focus on VC-backed growth. She concludes by pondering the future of online communities and their ability to maintain their initial spirit in the face of commercial pressures.

Vicki Boykis's blog post, "20 Years of YC / HN," published on March 17, 2025, offers an extensive and deeply personal reflection on the two-decade evolution of both Y Combinator (YC) and Hacker News (HN), two intertwined entities profoundly influential in shaping the technological landscape. Boykis begins by contextualizing the rise of YC and HN within the specific socio-economic environment of the early 2000s, a period characterized by the aftermath of the dot-com bust and a burgeoning, yet still nascent, internet culture. This era, she argues, fostered a distinct ethos of bootstrapping, community-building, and a focus on rapid iteration, principles that became deeply embedded within both YC and HN's DNA.

The post meticulously traces the trajectory of YC from its initial inception as a small, experimental program providing seed funding and mentorship to a select few startups, to its current status as a globally recognized powerhouse in the tech industry. This growth, Boykis notes, is mirrored by the parallel expansion of Hacker News, which evolved from a tight-knit community forum for discussing programming and startup ideas to a major platform influencing tech discourse and serving as a primary news source for many in the industry.

Central to Boykis's analysis is the observation that the intertwined growth of YC and HN has had a significant, and arguably complex, impact on the broader tech ecosystem. She explores how YC’s emphasis on specific metrics, like growth and scalability, has, in turn, shaped the kinds of startups that receive funding and the overall direction of technological innovation. She suggests that this focus, while undoubtedly contributing to the success of many companies, may have also inadvertently contributed to a certain homogeneity within the tech industry, potentially overlooking valuable innovations that don't fit neatly within the established framework.

Moreover, the post delves into the evolution of the Hacker News community itself, acknowledging its strengths as a platform for insightful discussions and its role in surfacing important ideas. However, Boykis also critically examines the potential downsides of its increasingly influential role. She discusses the potential for echo chambers, groupthink, and the challenges of maintaining a truly diverse and inclusive community within a platform that, despite its best intentions, can sometimes exhibit biases inherent within the broader tech culture. She reflects on how the initial idealistic vision of a meritocratic community has been challenged by the realities of scale and the complexities of moderating online discourse.

Finally, Boykis concludes with a more contemplative look towards the future, pondering the potential trajectories of both YC and HN in the years to come. She acknowledges the inherent challenges of predicting the future of technology, but suggests that understanding the historical context and the evolving dynamics of these two influential entities is crucial for navigating the ever-changing landscape of the tech industry. She leaves the reader with a sense of both optimism and cautious reflection, urging a critical and nuanced understanding of the powerful forces shaping the digital world.

Summary of Comments ( 18 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43394951

Hacker News users discuss Vicki Boykis's blog post reflecting on 20 years of Y Combinator and Hacker News. Several commenters express nostalgia for the earlier days of both, lamenting the perceived shift from a focus on truly disruptive startups to more conventional, less technically innovative ventures. Some discuss the increasing difficulty of getting into YC and the changing landscape of the startup world. The "YC application industrial complex" and the prevalence of AI-focused startups are recurring themes. Some users also critique Boykis's perspective, arguing that her criticisms are overly focused on consumer-facing companies and don't fully appreciate the B2B SaaS landscape. A few point out that YC has always funded a broad range of startups, and the perception of a decline may be due to individual biases.

The Hacker News post discussing Vicki Boykis' blog post "20 Years of YC" has generated a substantial number of comments, offering a variety of perspectives on the evolution of Y Combinator and its impact on the tech landscape.

Several commenters reflected on the changing nature of YC and the types of companies it funds. Some noted a shift away from the initial focus on consumer-facing internet startups towards more enterprise and B2B ventures, as well as a growing emphasis on "hard tech" and AI. There's discussion around whether this evolution is positive or negative, with some lamenting the perceived decline in disruptive consumer innovation while others argue that YC is simply adapting to the maturing tech ecosystem.

A recurring theme is the increasing difficulty for "regular people" to break into the startup world through YC. Commenters pointed to the rising costs of living in startup hubs, the prevalence of founders with pre-existing networks and advantages, and the perceived preference of YC for founders with prestigious educational backgrounds or prior startup experience. This sparked debate about accessibility and whether YC is fulfilling its original mission of democratizing entrepreneurship.

Some commenters offered personal anecdotes about their experiences with YC, both positive and negative. These firsthand accounts provide valuable insights into the program's inner workings and its impact on individual founders. There's also discussion of the role of HN itself in shaping the YC community and the broader tech industry.

A few commenters critiqued Boykis' analysis, arguing that she overemphasizes the negative aspects of YC's evolution or misrepresents certain aspects of its history. Others defended her perspective, highlighting the importance of critical examination of influential institutions like YC.

Overall, the comments section offers a rich and multifaceted discussion about YC's legacy and its future. The commenters explore the complex interplay of factors that have shaped the accelerator and its impact on the startup ecosystem, offering valuable perspectives for anyone interested in the evolution of the tech industry. The discussion is lively and engaging, with a mix of nostalgia, critique, and optimism about the future of startups and innovation.

The good times in tech are over

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-16 11:59:17

The tech industry's period of abundant capital and unconstrained growth has ended. Companies are now prioritizing profitability over growth at all costs, leading to widespread layoffs, hiring freezes, and a shift in focus towards efficiency. This change is driven by macroeconomic factors like rising interest rates and inflation, as well as a correction after years of unsustainable valuations and practices. While this signifies a more challenging environment, particularly for startups reliant on venture capital, it also marks a return to fundamentals and a focus on building sustainable businesses with strong unit economics. The author suggests this new era favors experienced operators and companies building essential products, while speculative ventures will struggle.

Sean Goedecke's blog post, "The Good Times in Tech Are Over," posits that the era of seemingly boundless growth and abundant opportunities within the technology sector has reached its conclusion. He meticulously dissects the confluence of factors contributing to this shift, elaborating on the historical context of cyclical booms and busts within the industry. Goedecke argues that the extraordinary expansion experienced during the pandemic, fueled by artificially low interest rates and a surge in digital adoption, created an unsustainable bubble. This period, characterized by inflated valuations, excessive hiring, and a focus on growth at all costs, has given way to a correction driven by macroeconomic headwinds.

Goedecke meticulously outlines several key drivers of this downturn. He emphasizes the impact of rising interest rates, which have increased the cost of capital and made speculative investments less attractive. This has led to a recalibration of valuations, particularly affecting high-growth, unprofitable companies. Furthermore, he highlights the diminishing returns on digital advertising spend, a crucial revenue stream for many tech businesses. As the digital advertising market matures, acquiring new users becomes increasingly expensive and less effective, squeezing profit margins.

The author then delves into the consequences of this changing landscape, specifically examining the widespread layoffs occurring across the tech industry. He argues that these workforce reductions are not merely a temporary cost-cutting measure but rather a reflection of a fundamental reset in expectations regarding growth and profitability. Companies are now prioritizing efficiency and sustainable business models over rapid expansion, leading to a more cautious approach to hiring and investment.

Looking towards the future, Goedecke suggests that the tech industry is unlikely to return to the exuberant growth rates of the recent past. He anticipates a period of consolidation and increased competition, where companies with strong fundamentals and sustainable business models will thrive, while those reliant on speculative valuations and unsustainable growth strategies will struggle. He concludes by advising individuals within the tech sector to adapt to this new reality by focusing on developing valuable skills, building robust networks, and embracing a more pragmatic approach to career development. He emphasizes the importance of preparing for a more competitive and demanding environment, where adaptability and resilience will be paramount to success.

Summary of Comments ( 128 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43378321

HN users largely agree with the premise that the "good times" of easy VC money and hypergrowth are over in the tech industry. Several commenters point to specific examples of companies rescinding offers, implementing hiring freezes, and laying off employees as evidence. Some discuss the cyclical nature of the tech industry and predict a return to a focus on fundamentals, profitability, and sustainable growth. A few express skepticism, arguing that while some froth may be gone, truly innovative companies will continue to thrive. Several also discuss the impact on employee compensation and expectations, suggesting a shift away from inflated salaries and perks. A common thread is the idea that this correction is a healthy and necessary adjustment after a period of excess.

The Hacker News post titled "The good times in tech are over" (linking to seangoedecke.com/good-times-are-over/) generated a significant number of comments, many of which discussed the cyclical nature of the tech industry, the changing economic landscape, and the implications for both employers and employees.

Several commenters agreed with the premise of the linked article, pointing to the recent wave of layoffs, hiring freezes, and reduced valuations as evidence of a downturn. They discussed how the era of easy money and rapid growth fueled by low interest rates is ending, leading to a correction in the market. Some mentioned that this is a healthy and expected part of the economic cycle, while others expressed concern about the potential for a deeper recession.

A recurring theme was the shift in power dynamics between employers and employees. Some commenters argued that the previously employee-friendly market, characterized by high salaries, generous perks, and abundant job opportunities, is now tilting back in favor of employers. This shift, they suggested, might lead to a more competitive job market, potentially impacting compensation and benefits.

Several commenters shared personal anecdotes about their experiences in the current market, including stories of layoffs, rescinded job offers, and difficulty finding new roles. These anecdotes provided real-world examples of the changing dynamics discussed in other comments.

Some commenters challenged the article's premise, arguing that the "good times" were never universally experienced, especially for those outside of specific tech hubs or roles. They pointed out that many tech workers have always faced precarious employment conditions and that the current downturn might disproportionately impact certain segments of the industry.

The discussion also touched on the potential long-term consequences of the current downturn, including the impact on innovation, startup funding, and the overall tech landscape. Some predicted a period of consolidation, with larger companies acquiring smaller ones and a greater focus on profitability over growth.

Several commenters offered advice for navigating the changing market, including focusing on acquiring in-demand skills, building a strong network, and being prepared for potential job changes. They also emphasized the importance of financial prudence and diversifying income streams.

Finally, some commenters expressed skepticism about the ability to accurately predict the future of the tech industry, highlighting the inherent uncertainty and volatility of the market. They suggested that while the current situation may be challenging, it also presents opportunities for those who are adaptable and resilient.

Happy 20th Birthday, Y Combinator

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-11 14:14:35

Garry Tan celebrates Y Combinator's 20th birthday, reflecting on its evolution from a summer program offering $11,000 and ramen to a global institution supporting thousands of founders. He emphasizes YC's consistent mission of helping ambitious builders create the future and expresses gratitude to the founders, alumni, partners, and staff who have contributed to its success over two decades. Tan also looks forward to the future, highlighting YC's continued commitment to supporting founders at all stages, from idea to IPO.

Summary of Comments ( 167 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43332658

The Hacker News comments on the "Happy 20th Birthday, Y Combinator" post largely express congratulations and fond memories of YC's earlier days. Several commenters reminisce about the smaller, more intimate nature of early batches and the evolution of the program over time. Some discuss the impact YC has had on the startup ecosystem, attributing its success to its simple yet effective model. A few express skepticism about the long-term sustainability of the accelerator model or criticize YC's shift towards larger, later-stage companies. There's also a thread discussing the origins of the "Y Combinator" name, referencing its mathematical and functional programming roots. Overall, the sentiment is positive and celebratory, reflecting on YC's significant influence on the tech world.

The Hacker News post "Happy 20th Birthday, Y Combinator" celebrates the incubator's anniversary and links to a tweet by Garry Tan, Y Combinator's current president. The comments section contains a mix of congratulations, reflections on YC's impact, and some criticisms.

Several commenters express admiration for YC's role in fostering startups and shaping the tech landscape over the past two decades. They point to its success in funding numerous successful companies and its influence on the startup ecosystem as a whole. Some users share personal anecdotes of applying to or participating in YC programs, highlighting the positive impact it had on their careers.

A recurring theme in the comments is the discussion of YC's evolution over time. Some users note a perceived shift in focus, with some arguing that YC has become more focused on later-stage companies and larger funding rounds. Others discuss the expansion of YC's programs and initiatives, such as its growth beyond Silicon Valley and its foray into areas like online education.

Several commenters express concerns about the potential downsides of YC's influence. Some argue that its emphasis on growth and rapid scaling has contributed to a culture of "blitzscaling" and unsustainable business practices. Others express skepticism about the long-term viability of some YC-backed companies and the potential for a market correction.

There's also a thread discussing the changing dynamics of the startup world and the role of accelerators like YC in this evolving landscape. Some users debate the effectiveness of traditional accelerator models in the current environment and suggest potential adaptations for the future.

A few commenters offer more critical perspectives, questioning the overall impact of YC and raising concerns about potential biases in its selection process. They also discuss the challenges faced by founders in the current economic climate and the role of accelerators in addressing these issues.

Overall, the comments section reflects a mix of celebratory sentiments, nostalgic reflections, and critical analysis of YC's role and impact on the startup world. The discussion highlights both the positive contributions and the potential downsides of YC's influence over the past 20 years.

Lifestyle of out of touch execs who are pushing return to office

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-02 16:47:30

The Twitter post satirizes executives pushing for a return to the office by highlighting their disconnect from the realities of average workers. It depicts their luxurious lifestyles, including short, chauffeured commutes in Teslas to lavish offices with catered meals, private gyms, and nap pods, contrasting sharply with the long, stressful commutes and packed public transport experienced by regular employees. This privileged perspective, the post argues, blinds them to the benefits of remote work and the burdens it lifts from their workforce.

The Twitter post by Ethan Evans, bearing the title "Lifestyle of out of touch execs who are pushing return to office," paints a satirical, yet arguably pointed, portrait of the purported disconnect between high-ranking executives advocating for a return to traditional office spaces and the realities faced by many employees. The post utilizes a multi-panel image format, akin to a comic strip, to illustrate the executive's daily routine.

It begins by depicting the executive awakening in a spacious, opulent bedroom, suggesting a life of considerable comfort and privilege. This is immediately juxtaposed with the implication that the executive's commute is remarkably short and effortless, seemingly involving a mere stroll down a hallway, perhaps within their own expansive residence, to a home office. This stands in stark contrast to the often arduous and time-consuming commutes experienced by typical employees.

The post then proceeds to depict the executive engaging in what appears to be a leisurely and undisturbed workday, free from the interruptions and distractions that frequently characterize the open-plan office environments to which many employees are expected to return. The executive is shown enjoying a gourmet lunch, again highlighting a level of luxury not readily accessible to most workers. The implication is that the executive's understanding of "office life" is fundamentally different from the reality experienced by the majority of their workforce.

The narrative culminates with the executive concluding their workday and seamlessly transitioning back into their comfortable home life, further underscoring the ease and convenience of their work arrangement. This is implicitly contrasted with the often-stressful transition many employees face when returning home after a long commute and a demanding day in a shared workspace. The overall message conveyed by the post is that these executives, due to their privileged circumstances, are unable to fully grasp the burdens and inconveniences associated with a mandatory return to the office for the average employee. They exist within a bubble of convenience and therefore lack the necessary perspective to make informed decisions regarding workplace policies that affect a wider workforce facing vastly different daily realities.

Summary of Comments ( 16 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43232255

HN commenters largely agree with the sentiment of the original tweet, criticizing the disconnect between executives pushing for return-to-office and the realities of employee lives. Several commenters share anecdotes of long commutes negating the benefits of in-office work, and the increased productivity and flexibility experienced while working remotely. Some point out the hypocrisy of executives enjoying flexible schedules while denying them to their employees. A few offer alternative explanations for the RTO push, such as justifying expensive office spaces or a perceived lack of control over remote workers. The idea that in-office work facilitates spontaneous collaboration is also challenged, with commenters arguing such interactions are infrequent and can be replicated remotely. Overall, the prevailing sentiment is that RTO mandates are driven by outdated management philosophies and a disregard for employee well-being.

The Hacker News post titled "Lifestyle of out of touch execs who are pushing return to office" (linking to a tweet showing an executive's lavish lifestyle) generated a substantial discussion with a variety of viewpoints.

Many commenters agreed with the original poster's sentiment, expressing cynicism about the disconnect between executives who enjoy luxurious lifestyles and employees who face the burdens of commuting and reduced flexibility. They argued that executives, insulated from the daily realities of most workers, push for return-to-office policies based on outdated ideas about productivity and control, rather than genuine concern for employee well-being. Some highlighted the hypocrisy of executives enjoying flexible work arrangements while denying them to their employees. Several comments emphasized the financial benefits executives receive from real estate investments and other arrangements tied to physical office spaces, suggesting a vested interest in forcing a return to office.

A recurring theme was the perceived class divide, with some commenters suggesting that executives simply don't understand or care about the struggles of average workers, particularly regarding childcare, commuting costs, and work-life balance. The comments also touched on the environmental impact of commuting, with some arguing that return-to-office mandates contribute unnecessarily to pollution.

However, not all commenters agreed with the premise. Some argued that the executive's lifestyle, while extravagant, is irrelevant to the return-to-office debate. They suggested that focusing on personal wealth distracts from legitimate arguments for in-person work, such as improved collaboration and mentorship. Others pointed out that the tweet offers no evidence that the executive in question is pushing for a return to office, making the connection speculative. A few commenters defended the right of executives to enjoy their wealth, regardless of their stance on remote work. One comment suggested that the real issue is not the lifestyle of executives, but rather the broader societal acceptance of vast wealth inequality.

Several commenters also discussed the nuances of remote work, acknowledging both its benefits and drawbacks. Some suggested that a hybrid approach, combining remote and in-office work, might be the most effective solution. Others noted that the effectiveness of remote work varies depending on the industry and specific roles. A few comments highlighted the importance of asynchronous communication and proper management techniques for successful remote teams.

Finally, some comments focused on the tweet itself, criticizing its tone and arguing that it contributes to a culture of resentment and class warfare. They suggested that a more constructive approach would be to focus on data-driven arguments about the effectiveness of different work models.

AI is killing some companies, yet others are thriving – let's look at the data

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-28 15:12:54

While some companies struggle to adapt to AI, others are leveraging it for significant growth. Data reveals a stark divide, with AI-native companies experiencing rapid expansion and increased market share, while incumbents in sectors like education and search face declines. This suggests that successful AI integration hinges on embracing new business models and prioritizing AI-driven innovation, rather than simply adding AI features to existing products. Companies that fully commit to an AI-first approach are better positioned to capitalize on its transformative potential, leaving those resistant to change vulnerable to disruption.

Elena Verna's article, "AI is killing some companies, yet others are thriving – let's look at the data," delves into the nuanced impact of artificial intelligence on businesses, arguing that its influence is not monolithic but rather dependent on a company's strategic approach. She refutes the simplistic narrative of AI as a universal disruptor, instead proposing a framework that categorizes companies into four distinct quadrants based on their current market position and their level of AI adoption.

These quadrants, visualized in a 2x2 matrix, represent the varying degrees of success and failure companies are experiencing in the age of AI. The first quadrant, labeled "Cruising," encompasses established companies with limited AI integration, who are currently maintaining their position but potentially facing future risks if they fail to adapt. The second quadrant, "Endangered," describes companies clinging to outdated business models, heavily reliant on processes now susceptible to disruption by AI-powered competitors. These businesses are experiencing declining performance and face a high likelihood of failure if they do not embrace AI transformation.

On the other side of the spectrum, the third quadrant, "Scrappy," identifies smaller, agile companies leveraging AI to innovate and gain market share. These companies, often startups or newer entrants, are utilizing AI to develop novel solutions and challenge established players. They are experiencing rapid growth and represent a significant competitive threat to traditional businesses. Finally, the fourth quadrant, "Thriving," represents established companies that have successfully integrated AI into their core operations and business models. These organizations are experiencing accelerated growth, enhanced efficiency, and are solidifying their market dominance by leveraging AI's transformative power.

Verna emphasizes that the key differentiator between thriving and failing companies is not simply the adoption of AI, but rather the strategic intent behind its implementation. She argues that companies must move beyond superficial applications of AI and instead focus on integrating it deeply into their core value proposition. Simply adding an AI chatbot, for instance, is insufficient for long-term success. True transformation requires reimagining business processes, developing new products and services enabled by AI, and fostering a culture of data-driven decision-making.

The article further elaborates on the strategies employed by thriving companies, highlighting the importance of data acquisition, talent acquisition, and organizational adaptability. These companies invest heavily in building robust data infrastructure, attracting and retaining skilled AI professionals, and fostering a culture that embraces change and experimentation. Verna concludes by stressing the urgency for companies to assess their current position within the AI landscape and proactively adapt their strategies to ensure survival and future growth. The message is clear: AI is not merely a technological trend, but a fundamental shift in the business landscape, and companies must embrace it strategically to thrive in this new era.

Summary of Comments ( 74 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43206491

Hacker News users discussed the impact of AI on different types of companies, generally agreeing with the article's premise. Some highlighted the importance of data quality and access as key differentiators, suggesting that companies with proprietary data or the ability to leverage large public datasets have a significant advantage. Others pointed to the challenge of integrating AI tools effectively into existing workflows, with some arguing that simply adding AI features doesn't guarantee success. A few commenters also emphasized the importance of a strong product vision and user experience, noting that AI is just a tool and not a solution in itself. Some skepticism was expressed about the long-term viability of AI-driven businesses that rely on easily replicable models. The potential for increased competition due to lower barriers to entry with AI tools was also discussed.

The Hacker News post "AI is killing some companies, yet others are thriving – let's look at the data" (linking to an article on elenaverna.com) sparked a discussion with several interesting comments.

Many commenters focused on the limitations of the data presented in the original article. One commenter pointed out the small sample size and the lack of specific company names, making it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions. They argued that without knowing the specific companies and their strategies, it's impossible to understand why some thrived while others failed. This commenter also questioned the methodology of categorizing companies as "AI-native" versus "legacy," suggesting the distinction might be arbitrary or even misleading.

Another commenter expanded on this skepticism, highlighting the difficulty of isolating the impact of AI. They argued that business success or failure is rarely attributable to a single factor, and the article's focus on AI might be oversimplifying a complex reality. They suggested other factors like market conditions, management decisions, and overall business strategy likely played a significant role, potentially even more so than AI adoption.

Some commenters debated the definition of "AI-native" companies. One questioned whether simply using AI tools or services qualifies a company as AI-native, or if it requires a more fundamental integration of AI into the core business model. This led to a discussion on the varying levels of AI adoption across different companies.

Several comments touched on the "hype cycle" surrounding AI. One user suggested that the current AI boom might be leading to inflated expectations and unsustainable business models. They cautioned against blindly embracing AI without a clear understanding of its potential benefits and limitations. Another echoed this sentiment, arguing that many companies might be investing in AI for the sake of it, rather than addressing a real business need.

Finally, a few commenters offered alternative perspectives on the data. One suggested that the "failing" companies might simply be those that were already struggling, and AI was merely a contributing factor rather than the primary cause of their downfall. Another commenter proposed that the successful AI companies might be those that focused on specific niche applications of AI, rather than trying to implement it broadly across their entire business.

Overall, the comments on Hacker News reflect a healthy skepticism towards the original article's claims. While acknowledging the potential impact of AI on business success, the commenters emphasized the need for more rigorous data and a deeper understanding of the complex interplay of factors that contribute to a company's performance. They caution against oversimplifying the narrative and advocate for a more nuanced view of AI's role in the business world.

Apple says it will add 20k jobs, spend $500B, produce AI servers in US

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-24 11:05:34

Apple announced a plan to invest $430 billion in the US economy over five years, creating 20,000 new jobs. This investment will focus on American-made components for its products, including a new line of AI servers. The company also highlighted its commitment to renewable energy and its growing investments in silicon engineering, 5G innovation, and manufacturing.

In a significant announcement bolstering its commitment to the American economy and its burgeoning artificial intelligence ambitions, Apple Inc. has unveiled a comprehensive plan encompassing job creation, substantial capital investment, and the domestic production of advanced computing hardware. The Cupertino-based technology giant has pledged to add 20,000 new positions across the United States over the next five years, further solidifying its role as a major employer within the nation. These new roles will span a diverse range of fields, including silicon engineering, artificial intelligence research, and software development, contributing to both Apple's ongoing innovation efforts and the broader technological advancement of the country.

Furthermore, Apple has committed to a staggering $430 billion investment in the American economy through 2027. This substantial capital infusion will be directed towards various initiatives, most notably the establishment of a new campus and engineering hub in North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park. This strategically located facility will serve as a focal point for Apple's growing East Coast operations and is expected to contribute significantly to the regional economy. In addition to the Research Triangle investment, Apple will be allocating resources towards expanding its existing facilities and supporting American suppliers, thereby fostering growth throughout the national supply chain. A notable portion of this $430 billion commitment, specifically $70 billion, will be dedicated to expanding and upgrading existing facilities such as those in Cupertino, California and Austin, Texas, thereby reinforcing Apple’s presence in these key technological hubs.

Central to Apple's strategic vision is a focused investment in cutting-edge artificial intelligence technology. As part of this commitment, the company has revealed plans to commence production of specialized AI servers within the United States. These servers, crucial for powering the complex algorithms and data processing required for advanced AI applications, will be manufactured domestically, underscoring Apple’s dedication to strengthening the American technology sector. This move towards domestic production not only ensures a more secure and reliable supply chain for Apple's AI endeavors but also contributes to the growth of high-tech manufacturing within the country. This strategic focus on AI infrastructure further underscores Apple’s recognition of the transformative potential of artificial intelligence and its commitment to being at the forefront of this rapidly evolving technological landscape. These combined initiatives signify a substantial and multifaceted investment in the future of both Apple and the American economy.

Summary of Comments ( 467 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43158168

Hacker News users discuss Apple's announcement with skepticism. Several question the feasibility of Apple producing their own AI servers at scale, given their lack of experience in this area and the existing dominance of Nvidia. Commenters also point out the vagueness of the announcement, lacking concrete details on the types of jobs created or the specific AI applications Apple intends to pursue. The large $500 billion figure is also met with suspicion, with some speculating it includes existing R&D spending repackaged for a press release. Finally, some express cynicism about the announcement being driven by political motivations related to onshoring and subsidies, rather than genuine technological advancement.

The Hacker News post discussing Apple's plan to add 20,000 jobs, spend $500 billion, and produce AI servers in the US generated a number of comments focusing on various aspects of the announcement. Several commenters expressed skepticism about the feasibility and sincerity of Apple's plans, particularly regarding the $500 billion figure. Some questioned the breakdown of this spending, wondering how much was genuinely new investment versus repackaged existing expenditures. Others pointed out the lack of specifics regarding the types of jobs being created, suggesting the possibility of low-paying roles rather than high-skill tech positions.

A recurring theme was the comparison of Apple's approach to AI with that of other tech giants like Google and Microsoft. Some commenters argued that Apple is lagging behind in the AI race, and this announcement is a belated attempt to catch up. The lack of concrete details about Apple's AI strategy fueled this perception. Others debated Apple's potential advantages, such as its vast user base and control over hardware and software, which could enable the development of unique AI applications.

The discussion also touched upon the political and economic context of the announcement, with some commenters viewing it as a strategic move to secure government subsidies and favorable regulations. The potential impact on the US economy and job market was also discussed, with varying opinions on the actual benefits of such large-scale investments. Some users highlighted the potential for "greenwashing," questioning whether Apple's commitment to renewable energy for its AI servers would genuinely offset the environmental impact.

Several commenters expressed concern about the potential for misuse of AI technology, particularly regarding privacy and surveillance. Apple's historically strong stance on privacy was mentioned, but some doubted whether the company could maintain this commitment in the face of increasing pressure to monetize AI capabilities.

Finally, some comments focused on the technical aspects of AI server production, discussing the potential challenges and opportunities for Apple in this area. The importance of securing a reliable supply chain for essential components was highlighted, along with the potential for Apple to leverage its existing expertise in chip design and manufacturing.

Software engineering job openings hit five-year low?

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-21 01:11:13

Software engineering job openings have dropped significantly, reaching a five-year low according to data analyzed from LinkedIn, Indeed, and Wellfound (formerly AngelList). While the overall number of openings remains higher than pre-pandemic levels, the decline is steep, particularly for senior roles. This downturn is attributed to several factors, including hiring freezes and layoffs at large tech companies, a decrease in venture capital funding leading to fewer startups, and a potential overestimation of long-term remote work demand. Despite the drop, certain specialized areas like AI/ML and DevOps are still seeing robust hiring. The author suggests that while the market favors employers currently, highly skilled engineers with in-demand specializations are still in a strong position.

The blog post "Software engineering job openings hit five-year low?" by Gergely Orosz on The Pragmatic Engineer explores the evolving landscape of software engineering employment opportunities, specifically focusing on the apparent decline in publicly advertised roles. Orosz meticulously examines various data points, including those from aggregators like Indeed, LinkedIn, and Wellfound (formerly AngelList), to paint a comprehensive picture of the current market situation. He notes that while these platforms indicate a significant drop in listed job openings, approaching levels not seen since 2018, this downward trend should not be interpreted as a simple and definitive contraction of the overall software engineering job market.

Orosz argues that several factors contribute to this observed decrease in job postings, which might not entirely reflect the true availability of engineering positions. Firstly, he posits that companies, especially those impacted by recent economic downturns and aiming for greater efficiency, are becoming more judicious and selective in their hiring practices. This means they are posting fewer roles, opting for internal mobility and promotions, and potentially relying on longer hiring cycles with more rigorous evaluation processes. Secondly, the prevalence of remote work has broadened the geographical scope for both employers and job seekers. This may lead to a dilution of postings across multiple regions, potentially masking the actual demand within specific localities. Thirdly, he considers the influence of aggregator algorithms, which may be prioritizing different types of listings and not fully capturing the entire spectrum of available opportunities.

Furthermore, the article delves into the nuances of the current hiring climate, differentiating between large technology companies and smaller startups. Orosz observes that while tech giants might be exhibiting more cautious hiring strategies, possibly due to internal restructuring or broader market conditions, smaller, rapidly growing companies may still be actively seeking engineering talent, albeit potentially through less conventional channels. He emphasizes the importance of networking and direct outreach, suggesting that many viable opportunities might not be advertised publicly on the commonly used job boards.

Finally, Orosz concludes that the perceived five-year low in advertised software engineering jobs does not necessarily equate to a drastic decline in the overall demand for skilled engineers. Rather, it reflects a shift in hiring dynamics, impacted by economic factors, evolving company practices, and the changing nature of job searching itself. He encourages readers to consider the data cautiously, acknowledging the limitations of aggregated platforms and emphasizing the ongoing need for talented engineers, especially in specific sectors and within growth-oriented companies. The article ultimately advocates for a proactive and nuanced approach to job seeking in the current environment.

Summary of Comments ( 93 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43122871

HN commenters largely agree with the premise of the article, pointing to a noticeable slowdown in hiring, particularly at larger tech companies. Several share anecdotes of rescinded offers, hiring freezes, and increased difficulty in finding new roles. Some suggest the slowdown is cyclical and predict a rebound, while others believe it's a correction after over-hiring during the pandemic. A few commenters challenge the article's data source or scope, arguing it doesn't fully represent the entire software engineering job market, particularly smaller companies or specific niches. Discussions also touch upon the impact of AI on software engineering jobs and the potential for increased competition. Some comments recommend specializing or focusing on niche skills to stand out in the current market.

The Hacker News post titled "Software engineering job openings hit five-year low?" with the ID 43122871 generated a moderate number of comments discussing the linked article about the decline in software engineering job openings. While not an overwhelming number, the discussion offers various perspectives on the current state of the tech job market.

Several commenters pointed out potential flaws in the methodology of the data presented in the original article. Some questioned the reliance on AngelList data, suggesting that it might not be fully representative of the entire software engineering job market. It was argued that AngelList tends to focus on startups, which are experiencing more significant impacts from the current economic downturn compared to larger, more established companies. Therefore, using AngelList data might skew the perception of the overall job market.

Other commenters discussed the shift in hiring practices. The feeling expressed was that companies are being far more selective, focusing on hiring for specific needs and roles, rather than engaging in the widespread, less targeted hiring sprees seen during periods of rapid growth. This increased selectivity contributes to the perceived decrease in open positions.

A few comments also highlighted the geographic disparities within the tech job market. While some regions might experience a significant downturn, others remain relatively robust. This suggests that focusing on national-level data might obscure the localized realities of the job market.

Several people shared anecdotal experiences. Some reported difficulties in finding new roles, confirming the trend mentioned in the article. Others, however, contradicted this trend, sharing their recent successes in securing new software engineering positions. This variance in individual experiences further emphasizes the complexity of the current job market.

A recurring theme in the comments was the influence of the current economic climate on the tech industry. Many believe the slowdown in hiring is a natural consequence of the broader economic downturn, affecting numerous sectors, not just tech.

Finally, some commenters discussed the impact of large-scale layoffs in major tech companies, suggesting that these layoffs contribute significantly to the perceived decrease in open positions. While new openings might still be created, they are often overshadowed by the highly publicized layoffs.

Overall, the discussion on Hacker News presented a nuanced perspective on the state of the software engineering job market. While acknowledging the data presented in the original article, commenters also highlighted its potential limitations and offered alternative interpretations based on personal experience and a broader understanding of the economic and industry-specific factors at play.

Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-11 09:42:42

Firing programmers due to perceived AI obsolescence is shortsighted and potentially disastrous. The article argues that while AI can automate certain coding tasks, it lacks the deep understanding, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills necessary for complex software development. Replacing experienced programmers with junior engineers relying on AI tools will likely lead to lower-quality code, increased technical debt, and difficulty maintaining and evolving software systems in the long run. True productivity gains come from leveraging AI to augment programmers, not replace them, freeing them from tedious tasks to focus on higher-level design and architectural challenges.

The article "Tech's Dumbest Mistake: Why Firing Programmers for AI is a Shortsighted Folly" argues vehemently against the burgeoning trend within the technology sector of dismissing human programmers in favor of perceived cost savings and increased efficiency offered by artificial intelligence tools. The author posits that this practice, driven by a superficial understanding of both software development and the capabilities of AI, represents a profound miscalculation with potentially devastating long-term consequences.

The central thesis revolves around the idea that AI, while demonstrably proficient at generating code snippets and automating certain routine tasks, fundamentally lacks the nuanced understanding, critical thinking, and problem-solving abilities essential for complex software development. The author meticulously elaborates on the multifaceted nature of programming, emphasizing that it extends far beyond mere code generation. It involves a deep comprehension of user needs, the ability to anticipate potential issues, and the creative ingenuity to design elegant and efficient solutions – qualities currently beyond the reach of artificial intelligence.

Furthermore, the article highlights the crucial role of human programmers in maintaining, debugging, and refining AI-generated code. It contends that relying solely on AI for software creation will inevitably lead to a proliferation of buggy, inefficient, and potentially insecure codebases. The absence of human oversight and intervention will make identifying and rectifying these issues significantly more challenging, resulting in increased technical debt and diminished software quality. This, the author argues, will ultimately negate any perceived cost benefits derived from reducing programmer headcount.

The piece also delves into the potential long-term implications of this trend, expressing concern about the erosion of critical programming expertise within organizations. By prematurely dismissing skilled programmers, companies risk losing invaluable institutional knowledge and experience, jeopardizing their ability to innovate and adapt to future technological advancements. The author suggests that instead of viewing AI as a replacement for human programmers, companies should embrace it as a powerful tool to augment their capabilities, allowing them to focus on more complex and creative aspects of software development.

Finally, the article underscores the importance of investing in the ongoing education and training of human programmers, enabling them to effectively leverage the power of AI while simultaneously retaining their critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The author concludes by imploring technology leaders to reconsider their short-sighted pursuit of cost-cutting measures and instead prioritize long-term investments in human capital, arguing that this is the only sustainable path towards true innovation and success in the ever-evolving landscape of software development.

Summary of Comments ( 731 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43010814

Hacker News users largely agreed with the article's premise that firing programmers in favor of AI is a mistake. Several commenters pointed out that current AI tools are better suited for augmenting programmers, not replacing them. They highlighted the importance of human oversight in software development for tasks like debugging, understanding context, and ensuring code quality. Some argued that the "dumbest mistake" isn't AI replacing programmers, but rather management's misinterpretation of AI capabilities and the rush to cut costs without considering the long-term implications. Others drew parallels to previous technological advancements, emphasizing that new tools tend to shift job roles rather than eliminate them entirely. A few dissenting voices suggested that while complete replacement isn't imminent, certain programming tasks could be automated, potentially impacting junior roles.

The Hacker News post "Firing programmers for AI is a mistake" (linking to a defragzone.substack article) has generated a robust discussion with numerous comments. Several compelling threads emerge from the conversation.

Many commenters agree with the premise of the original article, arguing that replacing programmers wholesale with AI tools is shortsighted. They highlight the crucial role of human programmers in tasks like understanding complex systems, debugging, and maintaining code quality, areas where current AI tools fall short. Several commenters draw analogies to previous "automation scares," pointing out that new technologies tend to augment human capabilities rather than completely replacing them. The expectation is that AI will become another tool in the programmer's toolkit, not a full replacement.

A common theme is the importance of domain expertise and critical thinking. Commenters argue that while AI can generate code, it lacks the deeper understanding of business logic, user needs, and potential pitfalls that experienced programmers bring to the table. They emphasize that AI tools are currently good at automating repetitive tasks, but struggle with nuanced problem-solving and creative solutions.

Some commenters discuss the potential for a shift in the demand for programming skills. They predict a future where programmers become more specialized, focusing on areas like prompt engineering, AI tool integration, and overseeing AI-generated code. There's a sense that the nature of programming work will evolve, requiring programmers to adapt and acquire new skills to work effectively with AI.

A few commenters express skepticism about the current hype surrounding AI. They argue that the capabilities of current AI tools are often overstated and that the true potential of AI in software development remains to be seen. These commenters caution against rushing to replace programmers before the technology is truly mature and reliable.

Several discussions revolve around the economic aspects of using AI for programming. While acknowledging the potential cost savings of automating certain tasks, some commenters raise concerns about the long-term implications for the software industry. They question whether relying heavily on AI-generated code could lead to a decline in code quality, increased security vulnerabilities, and a devaluation of programming skills.

Finally, some commenters share anecdotes and personal experiences related to using AI coding tools. These firsthand accounts offer practical insights into the current state of the technology, highlighting both its strengths and limitations. They provide concrete examples of how AI is being used in real-world projects and offer a glimpse into the potential future of AI-assisted programming.

Embrace the Grind (2021)

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-05 14:11:46

The blog post "Embrace the Grind (2021)" argues against the glorification of "the grind" – the relentless pursuit of work, often at the expense of personal well-being. It asserts that this mindset, frequently promoted in startup culture and hustle-based self-help, is ultimately unsustainable and harmful. The author advocates for a more balanced approach to work, emphasizing the importance of rest, leisure, and meaningful pursuits outside of professional endeavors. True success, the post suggests, isn't about constant striving but about finding fulfillment and achieving a sustainable lifestyle that integrates work with other essential aspects of life. Instead of embracing the grind, we should focus on efficiency, prioritizing deep work and setting boundaries to protect our time and energy.

In a 2021 blog post entitled "Embrace the Grind," author Jacob Kaplan-Moss elaborates on the multifaceted and often misinterpreted concept of "the grind" within the context of personal and professional pursuits. He distinguishes between two distinct forms of "grind": the detrimental "toxic grind" and the beneficial "embraced grind."

The toxic grind, as Kaplan-Moss defines it, is characterized by an unhealthy obsession with productivity, often driven by external pressures such as societal expectations or a relentless pursuit of financial gain. This type of grind is unsustainable and ultimately detrimental to one's well-being, leading to burnout, decreased creativity, and a diminished quality of life. It fosters a sense of resentment towards the work itself, turning it into a burdensome obligation rather than a source of fulfillment. This harmful grind is often perpetuated by a culture that glorifies overwork and prioritizes output over personal health and happiness.

Conversely, the embraced grind represents a more positive and sustainable approach to hard work. It is characterized by a deep intrinsic motivation and a genuine passion for the task at hand. This form of grind involves a conscious and deliberate engagement with the challenges inherent in pursuing a meaningful goal. Rather than being driven by external validation or material rewards, the embraced grind is fueled by a desire for personal growth, mastery, and the inherent satisfaction derived from overcoming obstacles. Kaplan-Moss argues that this type of grind, while demanding, can be a source of profound joy and fulfillment, leading to a sense of purpose and accomplishment.

He further posits that the key differentiator between the toxic and embraced grinds lies in the element of agency. The toxic grind is often imposed upon individuals, whereas the embraced grind is actively chosen. This sense of autonomy and control over one's work allows for a healthier relationship with the challenges encountered, transforming the arduous journey into a meaningful and rewarding experience. Furthermore, embracing the grind involves recognizing and respecting one's own limitations, incorporating periods of rest and recovery as integral components of the process, thereby mitigating the risks of burnout and fostering long-term sustainability. In essence, Kaplan-Moss advocates for a mindful and intentional approach to hard work, emphasizing the importance of intrinsic motivation, personal agency, and balanced lifestyle choices in cultivating a truly rewarding and sustainable "grind."

Summary of Comments ( 6 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42948703

Hacker News users largely disagreed with the premise of "embracing the grind." Many argued that consistent, focused work is valuable, but "grind culture," implying excessive and unsustainable effort, is detrimental. Some pointed out the importance of rest and recharging for long-term productivity and overall well-being. Others highlighted the societal pressures and systemic issues that often force individuals into a "grind" they wouldn't otherwise choose. Several commenters shared personal anecdotes of burnout and advocated for finding work-life balance and pursuing intrinsic motivation rather than external validation. The idea of "embracing the grind" was seen as toxic and potentially harmful, particularly to younger or less experienced workers.

The Hacker News post "Embrace the Grind (2021)" generated a significant discussion with a variety of perspectives on the concept of "grind culture." Several commenters pushed back against the author's seemingly positive portrayal of relentless work. One compelling argument highlighted the potential for burnout and the importance of recognizing individual limits, suggesting that continuous intense work can be detrimental to both physical and mental health. This commenter argued for a more balanced approach to work, emphasizing the need for rest and recovery.

Another commenter questioned the societal pressures that contribute to grind culture, arguing that the glorification of overwork often stems from systemic issues like economic insecurity and the pressure to constantly prove oneself. This perspective shifted the focus from individual responsibility to broader societal forces that incentivize unhealthy work habits.

Several commenters shared personal anecdotes of burnout and the negative consequences of prioritizing work above all else. These stories provided real-world examples of the potential downsides of "embracing the grind," lending weight to the arguments against it. One such story described how a period of intense work led to health problems and a diminished quality of life, ultimately forcing a reevaluation of priorities.

Some commenters agreed with the author to an extent, suggesting that hard work is necessary for achieving certain goals. However, they also emphasized the importance of intentionality and aligning one's efforts with personal values. They argued that "grind" should be purposeful and directed towards meaningful objectives, rather than being an end in itself. This nuanced perspective offered a middle ground between outright rejection of grind culture and complete acceptance of it.

A few commenters discussed the importance of defining "grind" carefully. They pointed out that consistent, dedicated effort can be beneficial, but it shouldn't be conflated with unsustainable overwork. This distinction highlighted the importance of setting healthy boundaries and prioritizing well-being alongside productivity.

Finally, some commenters offered alternative perspectives on achieving success, emphasizing the importance of strategic work, efficient time management, and leveraging one's strengths, rather than relying solely on brute force effort. They argued that working smarter, not necessarily harder, is often the key to achieving long-term goals. This perspective challenged the underlying assumption that more work automatically equates to better results.

Why is homeschooling becoming fashionable?

permalink

Posted: 2025-01-14 15:51:33

Homeschooling's rising popularity, particularly among tech-affluent families, is driven by several factors. Dissatisfaction with traditional schooling, amplified by pandemic disruptions and concerns about ideological indoctrination, plays a key role. The desire for personalized education tailored to a child's pace and interests, coupled with the flexibility afforded by remote work and financial resources, makes homeschooling increasingly feasible. This trend is further fueled by the availability of new online resources and communities that provide support and structure for homeschooling families. The perceived opportunity to cultivate creativity and critical thinking outside the confines of standardized curricula also contributes to homeschooling's growing appeal.

The article "Why are tech people suddenly so into homeschooling?" explores the burgeoning trend of homeschooling, particularly within the technology sector, dissecting the multifaceted motivations driving this educational shift. It posits that the phenomenon isn't merely a fleeting fad, but rather a confluence of evolving societal factors, technological advancements, and a reassessment of traditional educational paradigms. The piece delves into the perceived shortcomings of conventional schooling, highlighting concerns such as rigid curricula, standardized testing pressures, and a perceived lack of personalized learning experiences. It argues that these perceived inadequacies, coupled with the rise of remote work and flexible schedules, have created an environment conducive to exploring alternative educational pathways.

Furthermore, the article emphasizes the role of technology in facilitating this homeschooling resurgence. The proliferation of online learning resources, educational platforms, and digital tools has empowered parents to curate personalized learning journeys for their children, tailored to their individual strengths, interests, and learning styles. This newfound accessibility to educational resources, combined with the increasing comfort with online learning spurred by the pandemic, has lowered the barrier to entry for homeschooling, making it a more viable and attractive option for a wider range of families.

The piece also explores the philosophical underpinnings of this trend, suggesting that a desire for greater autonomy and control over their children's education is a key motivator for many tech-oriented parents. This desire for educational self-determination is often coupled with a belief in the efficacy of individualized learning approaches, and a skepticism towards the one-size-fits-all model of traditional schooling. The article further suggests that the entrepreneurial spirit prevalent in the tech industry may contribute to this embrace of unconventional educational paths, as these individuals are often comfortable challenging established norms and exploring innovative solutions.

Finally, the article acknowledges the potential drawbacks and challenges associated with homeschooling, including the significant time commitment required from parents, the potential for social isolation, and the need for careful curriculum planning and execution. However, it ultimately portrays the growing interest in homeschooling within the tech community not as a rejection of education, but rather as a reimagining of its delivery, driven by a desire to create more personalized, flexible, and engaging learning experiences for the next generation.

Summary of Comments ( 855 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42698737

Hacker News users discuss potential reasons for the perceived increase in homeschooling's popularity, questioning if it's truly "fashionable." Some suggest it's a reaction to declining public school quality, increased political influence in curriculum, and pandemic-era exposure to alternatives. Others highlight the desire for personalized education, religious motivations, and the ability of tech workers to support a single-income household. Some commenters are skeptical of the premise, suggesting the increase may not be as significant as perceived or is limited to specific demographics. Concerns about socialization and the potential for echo chambers are also raised. A few commenters share personal experiences, both positive and negative, reflecting the complexity of the homeschooling decision.

The Hacker News post "Why is homeschooling becoming fashionable?" with the link to https://newsletter.goodtechthings.com/p/why-are-tech-people-suddenly-so-into, has generated a considerable number of comments discussing various facets of homeschooling, particularly within the tech community.

Several commenters delve into the perceived shortcomings of the traditional schooling system. They highlight issues such as bureaucratic bloat, a perceived lack of focus on individual student needs, and a curriculum some view as outdated or irrelevant to the fast-paced technological landscape. Some express concerns about the social environment in traditional schools, citing bullying, peer pressure, and a lack of intellectual stimulation as reasons for considering alternatives.

A recurring theme is the increased flexibility and customization afforded by homeschooling. Commenters point to the ability to tailor the curriculum to a child's specific interests and learning style, allowing for deeper dives into subjects of passion and the potential for accelerated learning. The ability to incorporate real-world experiences, travel, and unconventional learning approaches is also mentioned as a significant advantage.

The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic is acknowledged, with several commenters suggesting that the shift to remote learning exposed families to alternative educational models and highlighted the feasibility of homeschooling. This, coupled with the rise of online resources and communities dedicated to homeschooling, has lowered the barrier to entry for many families.

Some commenters express skepticism about the purported benefits of homeschooling. Concerns are raised regarding the potential for social isolation, the burden placed on parents, and the variability in quality of homeschooling programs. The importance of qualified educators and the potential for gaps in a child's education are also discussed. A few commenters emphasize the social value of traditional schooling and the importance of learning to navigate diverse social environments.

Several threads delve into the specific motivations of tech workers for homeschooling. Some suggest that the entrepreneurial mindset prevalent in the tech industry, coupled with a desire for autonomy and control, makes homeschooling appealing. Others posit that tech workers, often accustomed to self-directed learning and rapid adaptation, may feel more equipped to navigate the challenges of homeschooling.

The discussion also touches upon the potential financial implications of homeschooling, with some commenters acknowledging that it can be a significant investment of time and resources. The availability of support networks and communities is mentioned as a crucial factor in the success of homeschooling.

Overall, the comments offer a diverse range of perspectives on the growing interest in homeschooling, particularly within the tech community. While some embrace it as a viable alternative to traditional schooling, others express reservations and caution against potential drawbacks. The discussion highlights the complex considerations involved in choosing an educational path for children and the evolving landscape of education in the 21st century.

Stories with Tag tech industry

Summary of Comments ( 523 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43661235

Summary of Comments ( 8 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43631276

Summary of Comments ( 66 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43470971

Summary of Comments ( 114 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43437028

Summary of Comments ( 18 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43394951

Summary of Comments ( 128 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43378321

Summary of Comments ( 167 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43332658

Summary of Comments ( 16 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43232255

Summary of Comments ( 74 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43206491

Summary of Comments ( 467 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43158168

Summary of Comments ( 93 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43122871

Summary of Comments ( 731 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43010814

Summary of Comments ( 6 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42948703

Summary of Comments ( 855 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42698737

Summary of Comments ( 523 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43661235

Summary of Comments ( 8 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43631276

Summary of Comments ( 66 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43470971

Summary of Comments ( 114 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43437028

Summary of Comments ( 18 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43394951

Summary of Comments ( 128 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43378321

Summary of Comments ( 167 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43332658

Summary of Comments ( 16 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43232255

Summary of Comments ( 74 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43206491

Summary of Comments ( 467 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43158168

Summary of Comments ( 93 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43122871

Summary of Comments ( 731 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43010814

Summary of Comments ( 6 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42948703

Summary of Comments ( 855 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42698737