Yes, this article has the value of having a child’s perspective in form of an adult prose. It’s difficult to sympathize with him as an adult but gives insight on how some children see their parents during their adolescence.
I disagree. The author is clearly stating that he was not compatible with his parents’ way of raising him. So he is saying their way was “wrong”, and this implies that there is a “right” way, or at least “not wrong” way. I just feel really bad for the parents.
The only gripe I have is I have like 100 project windows open and I need to look for it (ctrl+P only works within the project window). Otherwise, it’s pretty much a perfect editor. Maybe I’m missing a plugin.
Absolutely agree on this.
1. DeepSeek just inspired a LOT of startups to develop their own as you no longer need to be a tech-giant to compete on training.
2. Companies with sensitive info will now buy their own GPUs to run their models locally as the range of application increased (as it did with Llama3)
3. As with 2, new services that were prohibitive with ChatGPT API will spring up. It’s difficult to reliably rent GPUs for services even with enough money, so people will buy more GPUs to host it themselves.
I understand if new CPU/GPU can outperform Nvidia and DeepSeek was developed using another GPU, but this is not the case. Lower requirement for higher performance historically never reduced the need for computational capacity. There is very poor reasoning for this move other than purely “technical” (trading-wise) reasons.
I think the article correctly points out the problem with the story of the company. At least to investors, their effort looks too unfocused by trying to be everything at once. Is it a software company or biotech company? I guess you’ll have to open the box to find out.
From my observations, I think Cony is very quick to identify when a particular technology has outpaced the rest is the portfolio, and so he is very quick to spin up a new venture to try and capitalize on that, rather than waiting for the rest of the portfolio to catch up and deliver.
How many useful technologies were created in pursuit of a goal that ultimately was never realized, but were later repurposed into something incredible in an entirely different field or market? My guess is (and this is just a guess), that the newcos were attempts to capitalize on technology created in pursuit of other goals. If you need 5 things to come together to design a drug, and you only get 3 of them, you may fail to get the drug, but you still have 3 pieces of valuable technology that it might make sense to commercialize.
Also, biotech failure rate is up there with restaurants. It's always a roll of the dice....so if you can roll more dice for marginal cost, its basically always a good idea.
