Yep. Meanwhile I’m trying to figure out how can I make something that people would want to pay for, and how can I charge them, if they’re going to interact directly with Claude and burn their own quota.
That's a really good idea! That would handle micropayments that nobody would even bother with (to pay, to process, to receive, ...).
Could even have users select the payment %age or have it set by the contract tier between the app creator and the user (10% for simple user, 20% for pro access with other features, 40% enterprise,...).
Yes I agree strongly, if I could just make a small percentage for my mildly interesting LLM wrapper it would be perfect! @anthropic please implement this
And a lot of them cannot get up to speed, even when they want to. Many big corporations struggle with evolution and innovation due to crippling bureaucracy, created and supported by risk averse leadership. This is usually worse for publicly traded companies.
Unless it is something like Meta, then they have a Zuck, someone smart, with enough oversight and power, who can drain the swamp and make the whole machine move.
Zuckerberg made a genius move from the web 2.0 to the current smartphone era we still live in. But I would not be on his capability to do it again, he failed badly with metaverse and so far is failing with AI
Not only "our context window" is larger but we can add and remove from it on-the-fly, or rely on somebody else who, for that very specific problem, has a far better informed "context window", that BTW they're adding to/removing from on-the-fly as well.
Twitter as a non critical application can afford to malfunction for a couple of minutes or maybe hours even.
I think they're not understaffed, for now. They're delivering new features and fixing most bugs. A understaffed engineering team usually struggles with that.
One of the orgs that Elon cut the hardest was the trust and safety and spam team. He had strong condemnation for their "suppression" of "free speech".
Maybe he had a point. Maybe he didn't. But what is clear is that spam and fraudulent traffic on Twitter has exploded in the past year, to the point where it's causing serious problems.
Silver lining in this I guess. If everyone realizes at the same time they're all f'd together, regardless of "skill", then maybe there's a chance we can all work together to save ourselves.
No chance to think "sucks for you, but I'm good here" like so often happens with other issues.
Not "any" but "most". I've worked for a company whose RoR codebase/structure looked completely different from the usual because they used a Domain Driven Design-inspired architecture.
This is due to a conflict of philosophies within the RoR community. Basically the clean code enthusiasts (which are also more likely to subscribe to DDD) argue that business logic should not be tied to which specific web application framework you use. So it should basically be in a separate codebase, either in the `lib/` directory or literally in a different project and included into your application as a Gem.
This makes sense from an objective perspective on what constitutes clean code, and I used to believe that this is what a really large enterprise Rails codebase should be refactored to eventually (although I never personally did so).
Rails offers an alternative approach to this however, that is less neat from an objective perspective, but actually follows the Rails principles a lot better and it's called Rails engines. Basically you split your Rails app up into multiple mini-rails apps for each domain called Rails engines, each has the same directory structure as a Rails app and you get the full benefits of a regular Rails app inside each. I used to think this was an ugly approach and I never even considered it, but now after over a decade of Rails development I've made a 180 and I believe this is the way to go.
The "clean" way forces you to construct interfaces between your business logic and the Rails app, basically introducing a lot of extra boiler plate. All for the perceived benefit of making your business logic be abstract of the Rails framework. This violates YAGNI of course, and by a huge margin too. I've never seen the business logic of a Rails app be ported to some other framework in 15 years, the most I've seen is reusing code in a Grape API that was mounted inside the Rails app. And what you give up is Rails' convention over configuration and its predictable structure, and the general documentation and knowledge of that structure that people can carry from job to job.
I'm struggling / thinking about this myself a lot.
I've learnt a bit of Django's app-centric model (which is similar to rail's "engines")
I work for a company that enforced the data/domain/interface with a plug-in approach to custom code.. and I liked it.
But for my own projects, I get stuck choosing between the two, I see more benefits in the layered approach, but I feel like I'm fighting the tide with every project I start
That's very interesting! In Django this "Rails Engines" approach is the default. A Django project will be made out of multiple Django "apps", each having its own routers (called URL-dispatchers), controllers (called views - yes, I know its weird to call them that), models and templates.
I really liked the DDD book, but I think that many of the suggestions mostly apply to huge "do it all" enterprise applications, which are also not the best fit for Rails. So I think it's OK if you can't easily apply those patterns to a Rails app - if you actually need to build a single enterprise application to rule them all, you should probably choose a different framework anyway.
I also had good results with recruiters. They will actually get you at the door, so you better be prepared. Seems to be a decent strategy for people who are bad at networking like I am.
Recruiters get a lot of flak here and elsewhere, but having recently interacted with a few for a recent job change, their incentives are aligned to have some skin in the game, and they can do the emotionally draining part of pushing the company to speed up the process for you without having to send multiple emails or waiting for months for your rejection.
When you say "recruiters," do you mean in-house recruiters or third party recruiters? Getting an in-house person on your side certainly is a great way to speed along the hiring process, but I've literally never had a third party recruiter send anything my way that ever came close to working out. It's gotten to the point where if I get an email from a 3rd party recruiter, I just don't look at it -- although I'm not sure if taking a chance on one of them at this point is a higher percentage play than 100 cold applications, TBH.
I suspect a lot of it has to do with the type of companies that tend to hire 3rd party recruiters. Namely, startups, and typically early stage startups who don't have any in-house recruiting staff. There's nothing at all wrong with early stage startup companies, except that my experience seems to indicate they don't actually know what they're even looking for. That's in addition to the likelihood that they just haven't been around long enough to develop a structured hiring process.
I don't know. What I will say is that your incentives and a 3rd party recruiter's are not the same. They want to place you quickly and get the commission, regardless if it's the best company or the most competitive offer. You're right that they do want to keep you at least somewhat happy, because if they get a reputation for treating candidates badly, that can be fatal in their profession. But, the people they really want to keep happy are the ones writing the checks. And, in this situation, that ain't you. You are quite literally the product here.
3rd party recs aren't entirely aligned with either the employee or the employer, but that fat cheque is a massive incentive that makes things happen. I've heard of recruiters who placed portfolio managers and ended up getting seven figures due to the compensation arrangement.
The thing about 3rd parties is they are really useful if you're already on the inside. If you have all the relevant CV points, they will get you interviews. This is the flip side of why people get ghosted by them: if they don't think you'll be easy to place, they won't bother with you, and in fact they think the employers will stop taking their calls if they push the wrong CVs.
Another thing about recruitment is that not everyone is good at it. There's a lot of young ones just out of uni who give it a shot, and suck at it. Badly organised, don't know the business, waste a lot time for a lot of people. I've got a bunch of LinkedIn contacts who are in various unrelated businesses because they started off in recruitment and couldn't bill enough to stay there. If you don't field a lot of calls the ones you do talk to might be these noobs who are looking for leads.
I can only speak for my little corner of the market. For systematic trading, there's LinkedIn and there's efinancialcareers. Those are places where you find ads for the type of jobs I'm interested in.
But don't apply for the jobs on those portals, that is just a black hole. Just look at the ads, note down the names of the recruiters and firms they work for, and either phone them or message them on LinkedIn.
They'll have a chat with you to find out your situation, and then they will tell you what jobs they've got. Note that every recruiter in the whole world thinks they have a great relationship with Citadel, Millennium, and every other well known employer in the space, so those intros have no value at all to you, since anyone could be your gateway. They'll also have a bunch of less well known firms, so you need more than one recruiter since they don't all know everyone.
Of course LinkedIn is also a way for the recruiters to get in contact with you. Just set yourself to open and wait around, a fish comes every week or so.
Putting your resume on job boards for 3rd party recruiters (at least in India). Not sure how it is in EU/US.
For recruiters within a company, try looking for them on LinkedIn, check out a recent post of theirs to verify if they still work for the company, and reach out with an application if they have an email address, or via LinkedIn messages.
When I search for companies in India, all I get are 3rd party recruitment firms. The recruiters themselves are hopeless and ask questions like "How many years of Git experience do you have?".
How do you find promising companies in the first place?
I have had some good experiences with 3rd party recruiters. You obviously need to keep the fact that they will say whatever to get you to take the job they find. But equally they will push the company to hire you.
I used local recruiters to find me jobs most of my career (1999, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018). I met them in person either at their office or for lunch. I met one in 2012 who found the perfect job for me in 2018. We stayed in touch all of those years.
My first job in 1996 was based on a return offer from an internship.
In 2008, I did the random submit my resume everywhere thing and in 2020 an internal recruiter from $BigTech reached out to me.
With remote work being more of a thing combined with my much stronger network and resume, I will probably lean much more on my network and resume the next time I’m looking.
> I suspect a lot of it has to do with the type of companies that tend to hire 3rd party recruiters. Namely, startups, and typically early stage startups who don't have any in-house recruiting staff.
That hasn't been my experience. In a startup people often wear multiple hats, so it's not uncommon for CTOs or CEOs to be directly involved in the hiring process. Startups usually list their open positions on their site and screen applications via email, or post on the HN Hiring and other niche job boards. Startups certainly don't want the cost and communication overhead of dealing with recruiters, especially because it costs them much more to make a wrong hire at an early stage.
In contrast, large and mostly technically out-of-touch companies love 3rd party recruiters. They give them a bunch of vague role requirements, and let recruiters do the dirty work for them. If there are problems with filling a role, they can always blame the recruiting agency.
Lots of recruiters are scum, but some are great, and it's not always easy to tell the difference. I get all my work through recruiters who find me on LinkedIn, and they've found me some great projects. I may hate LinkedIn, but it really works for me. (Mind you, I'm a freelance contractor, not an employee.)
Exactly, this is my experience as well. It has happened more than once to me that my application didn't get any response, but then when I contacted a recruiter he could get me in for an interview at the same company. One time I even got the job.
There's a demand, why not supply it, and make money while you are at it?
This reminds me of the RMT driven botting problem in WoW (World of Warcraft). Instead of fighting the neverending game of cat and mouse against botters, Blizzard just decided to supply the long reprimanded demand for in-game currency by creating the WoW token, and they make money while they're at.
Yeah but people will still have to generate excess produce somehow in order to have something to trade for those (now cheaper) goods, and with automation taking both skilled and unskilled jobs out of the market, I keep wondering what kind of jobs will be left available for the average Joe.
Isn't Iceland inhabited by like 340k people? Maybe they're testing the waters or trying to limit how many people end up moving there.
Overall I agree. DNs would use Portugal's D7 to move in (in an exception of what the visa was originally intended to), but then Portugal introduced a DN visa which now requires a much higher income than what D7 requires, I think 4x times more than D7.
D7 was minimum wage, if I recall correctly, around 800 euros per month. I don't think 4x minimum wage is at all unreasonable if it makes the process smoother, since they make the D7 application process as horrible as possible.
I had an awful experience applying for D7, so I am now happily living in Dubai instead which has the best residency process I have seen for ANY country.
