How's your level of false information? For instance, if I ask about highly technical specifics, such as how load bearing architecture works or a tutorial on loop quantum gravity, will your LLM fabricate information or are sources easily available for the presented facts?
Personally, I would be very interested if the system provides a simple method of fact checking.
This is a great idea. Currently it does not browse the internet at all, it is just using typical GPT requests with whatever it is trained on which can hallucinate. However, I think it can be pretty accurate at most things. Adding the ability to fact check any given part of the course is an awesome feature idea!
In that case, it is time for regulators to step in to use the Tesla charger design as the basis for an industrial standard that anyone can build, like USB 3.1 or RJ-45.
The constant "As I'll talk about later" thing makes my eye twitch. Either talk about it when you bring it up or save it for later. If you do talk about it, you can always add more details later that would not have initially made sense.
An increase in homelessness and drug addicts could easily be explained by people travelling to Oregon for treatment. This is not the sort of thing that "public perception" is particularly good at understanding. Changes like this take time. Effectiveness needs to be measured by hard data, not opinion polls.
By the way, for your air example: compressed air would be an example of value over the naturally abundant resource. Profit on one of those little cans of air used to clean your keyboard is the "value capture".
Water, on the other hand, is a municipal resource that is supported through taxation. The private companies that handle most of the work are highly regulated because clean water is considered a public good. Bottled water through private companies does have a staggeringly high profit margin.
In the case of compressed air, actual work is being done to make it... compressed air.
With water, it is still very very cheap relative to the value it provides. Why isn't water 20% of the GDP of the world? Isn't it that important? (https://alexdanco.com/2015/11/23/ways-to-think-about-water/, never read this essay btw, read several of Alex's other essays though. I'm assuming the essay talks about the importance of water)
Software isn't static nor does it exist on it's own. You're not paying for the current version. You're paying for support, security patches, and for the next versions to be written. In the case of software services, you're also paying for administration, active network security, networking, and hardware operations.
Software is a lot like art or literature. The creator needs to be able to live in order to continue creating. Otherwise updates, new versions, and new creations become highly irregular or utterly non-existent.
Profit extracted from companies over the cost of business exist because that is how all businesses function. Profit is literally the point of capitalism. Investment in companies would not happen without the promise of a return. Even the smallest of businesses would not be possible without profit.
For a non-tech example, eggs don't cost $3.99 per dozen to produce. Eggs are expensive because of an extremely high profit margin. Is it justified? Price gouging? Currently there is no hard rule that differentiates the two.
Whether or not there should be a profit percentage cap is an entirely different conversation and not unique to tech. Personally, I think there should be a maximum amount of profit expressed as a percentage of unit cost that should be legal. Further, I think that an equal percentage of the unit cost should always be applied to wage increases equally across the company for non-management roles. Management should be paid out of the extracted profit percentage.
Your first and second paragraphs are better arguments for subscriptions over one-time payment than they are for the existence of high profit margins despite software's cheapnes.
3rd paragraph. I'm not arguing against profits just, overly high ones in the face of cheap 'raw materials'.
4th and 5th. Questioning high profit margins in businesses (didn't realize eggs too had high margins tbh) and wondering if profits should be capped seem like obviously related things.
Solutions? In the case of SaaS:
— Product pricing starting high, but declining over time (yes, literally making laws that new software MUST be absurdly expensive at first).
Would mean:
(i) Fewer 100th x competitor software product since it's hard convincing people to part with say $100, you need to actually have a 10x solution.
(ii) Increased organic word of mouth growth, since users have an incentive (declining pricing) to increase total users.
I haven't heard of him objecting to the Sun origins of ZFS, but he has warned people away from ZFS on the grounds of Oracle's litigious reputation:
> And honestly, there is no way I can merge any of the ZFS efforts until I get an official letter from Oracle that is signed by their main legal counsel or preferably by Larry Ellison himself that says that yes, it's ok to do so and treat the end result as GPL'd.
> Other people think it can be ok to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the module interface makes it ok, and that's their decision. But considering Oracle's litigious nature, and the questions over licensing, there's no way I can feel safe in ever doing so.
> And I'm not at all interested in some "ZFS shim layer" thing either that some people seem to think would isolate the two projects. That adds no value to our side, and given Oracle's interface copyright suits (see Java), I don't think it's any real licensing win either.
> Don't use ZFS. It's that simple. It was always more of a buzzword than anything else, I feel, and the licensing issues just make it a non-starter for me.
In principle I guess, but not in practice. Linux is distributed under the GPLv2 without the "or later" clause, so you couldn't simply convince the FSF to release a GPLv4 that allowed this. Nor do contributors sign away their rights. To re-license the kernel you'd have to get the consent of all the contributors, or replace the parts for which that was impossible.
