I felt the same, and I saw multiple people did back in 2016 as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12554887

Edit: Looking at the raw pixel data, the cells seem to be (0, 0, 0), (0, 0, 0), (1, 1, 1), (8, 8, 8), so there is indeed no practical difference between the first three.

That total R&D spending number is heavily private sector, and is often not what a normal person would consider research, as there is a tax incentive to identify activities as R&D.

But that just means the bank is creating deliberately delusional forecasts.

I can build a building that charges a billion dollars a month rent, and sits completely empty. A forecast suggestion I'll be making hundreds of billions with no renters is clearly silly.

You’re paying the loan, go for it son.

I commented about the logic of the bank's forecasting. Your response doesn't make sense in that context.

Your fictional scenario doesn’t make sense either? Why should it warrant a serious reply.

How, specifically? If they refuse to acknowledge the building is worth less than they expected, they aren't going to sell it to you at a price where you can make money either.

Have you ever considered that your opinion, that it’s worth less, is incorrect?

That's another way of phrasing what I asked you to explain, without actually answering.

You’re stating the outcome - the property is worth less - without understanding how people buy/sell said property. And asking why others don’t agree?

The article outlines the methods used for the most part to the best of my knowledge, as someone who owns and deals in this space.

I think you need to lay out a better argument for why your thesis is the case when what happens in the real world mirrors what the article discusses. Not to mention people forget property can be owned without a bank/loan, nor that vacancies are expected/factored in.

You just don't have an answer, as you're still not answering.

I already intimated your assumptions are incorrect.

Markets clear at a price, pay that price. It’s just not the one you want.

It's usually just that the core product was built a long time ago, and that's 95% of what customers want.

There's always the option of getting rid of all the engineers working on new stuff, and having a small support staff. Often times, customers would even prefer that.

spotify should do this

> First one was uniformity. Every service deploys the same way.

My current company makes this claim, but it's not true. They also have serverless apps, and also have some services running directly on EC2.

They just think of the Kubernetes deployments as the "standard" way.

> Second was shared, hireable knowledge. K8s is basically a lingua franca now.

People were demanding experience with Kubernetes, long before it was reasonable to expect it. Everyone added it to their resume, because they had to.

If all you are using on AWS is EC2, I agree that it has no value. You should switch to a much cheaper option.

A lot of the comments in this thread are down voted. None of them have anything to do with the content of the video people came here to see discussion of.

He's discussing Anthropic struggling to fix an issue with their own product. He's not the one struggling.

The concept of the responsible party bearing the costs is a good one, but if we're honest about who that is, it's often going to be company leadership.

The person who made the breaking change is often diligently following instructions to get it done as soon as possible.