As a childless OMSCS graduate, I also can’t imagine doing it while having kids, because it took basically all of my free time. That said, I met quite a few people in the program who were in situations similar to yours. I have no idea how they managed it, but they somehow did.
> In that case the winning strategy would be to switch hedge funds every 3 years.
When you flip a coin, you can easily get all heads for the first 2-4 flips, but over time it will average out to about 50% heads. It doesn’t follow from this that the winning strategy is to change the coin every 3 flips.
I think the point of comparison (whether I agree with it or not) is someone (or something) that is unable to feel remorse saying “I’m sorry” because they recognize that’s what you’re supposed to do in that situation, regardless of their internal feelings. That doesn’t mean everyone who says “sorry” is a psychopath.
We are talking about an LLM it does what it has learned. The whole giving it human ticks or characteristics when the response makes sense ie. saying sorry is a user problem.
Okay? I specifically responded to your comment that the parent comment implied "if you make a mistake and say sorry you are also a psychopath", which clearly wasn’t the case. I don’t get what your response has to do with that.
But this sounds like an ideal setup, doesn't it? Tim is fantastic at execution, but he does need a shot of big-picture vision every now and then. Tim as CEO with Steve as Chairman, steering the broader direction, feels like it could have been a perfect pairing. The issue with how things actually turned out is that Tim ended up on his own - all execution, no vision.
How many people can name the chairman of the board at Apple today off the top of their head (Arthur Levinson)? And how much does Arthur Levinson steer the broader direction of the company? That's just not what the role is about.
Steve was so effective precisely because he was able to get deeply involved in the day to day details in ways no other CEO has (whether on product matters, or personnel matters). That's not what you do as chairman of the board.
> How many people can name the chairman of the board at Apple today off the top of their head (Arthur Levinson)? And how much does Arthur Levinson steer the broader direction of the company? That's just not what the role is about.
Jobs in that role would likely take a much more occasionally-active role w.r.t. future product direction since that was kind of his bread-and-butter and the company was his long-time passion project. Not because that's the regular purpose of that role, but because that's what he'd probably want to keep doing.
I think you misunderstood what people are taking issue with. You explain that this matter is complicated and non-trivial - and yes, that’s exactly the point!
People don’t have a problem with real-time communication via audio or video in general. They have a problem with the suggestion that it’s a trivial issue that can be easily fixed by "jumping on a quick call."
The point about there being a "fairly in-depth" description of the issues isn’t that there’s nothing more to discuss - fixing those issues would obviously require talking through the specifics. The point is that this is a real problem that requires action and commitment, so suggesting it’s a non-issue that can be clarified with “a quick call” comes off as dismissive and unproductive, whether that’s intentional or not.
"Let's hop on a quick call so we can truly understand what you're struggling with".
The response doesn't acknowledge the severity of the problem at all and the wording of "what you're struggling with" suggests that the original poster is somehow at fault (or too dumb) for "struggling" with Mozilla's terrible decisions.
This is the kind of reply you'd get if you contacted Dell tech support because your computer is not turning on.
I assume it didn't. I can't imagine it's not versioned.
> The response doesn't acknowledge the severity of the problem at all
Offering to escalate to a phone call immediately seems to acknowledge the severity to me. Not really sure what you want here. The person came in with complaints, the response is to dig into them over the phone. That's ideal.
> the wording of "what you're struggling with" suggests that the original poster is somehow at fault (or too dumb) for "struggling" with Mozilla's terrible decisions.
This is a bizarre interpretation. I read it as validating that the person is having a rough time. There is zero indication of whose fault it is, or that it has anything to do with intelligence. That's coming from you, not the text. The fact that you are reading empathetic wording as an insult to someone's intelligence baffles me.
If I take the time to organize my thoughts and present them, I want the person to whom I'm presenting them to attempt to respond.
If I failed to make myself clear, at a minimum, presenting me with a list of things needing clarification is helpful for me to take the time to prepare.
"Hop on a call" is to me almost always shorthand for "I don't respect the issue enough to attempt to organize my thoughts ahead of time, but I'll ramble about it and let you pick my brain." Or in the most malicious cases, the other party is seeking plausible deniability.
In my experience it's not that way 100% of the time, but it's damn close.
There is a big leap between them not being the sole person responsible for technical decisions and them not even necessarily having a seat at the table for technology direction. The former is understandable. Later - quite surprising.
I'm not sure what I wrote that's contrary to any of that? Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "probably"? There are a lot of people responsible for the technical direction of a large company of which the CTO is important but hardly the only one.
That’s like saying Volodymyr Zelenskyy supports Trump. Foreign politicians operate outside of U.S. domestic politics - they don’t get to choose other countries’ leaders. Their job is to use diplomacy to navigate international politics in whatever shape those politics happen to be in.
I don’t see a claim that anyone with a negative attitude toward AI shouldn’t be listened to because it automatically means that they formed their opinion on older models. The claim was simply that there’s a large cohort of people who undervalue the capabilities of language models because they formed their views while evaluating earlier versions.
I wouldn’t think gpt5 is any better than the previous chat gpt. I know it’s a silly example but I was trying to trip it up with the 8.6-8.11 and it got it right .49 but then it said the opposite of 8.6 - 8.12 was -.21.
I just don’t see that much of a difference coding either with Claude 4 or Gemini 2.5 pro. Like they’re all fine but the difference isn’t changing anything in what I use them for. Maybe people are having more success with the agent stuff but in my mind it’s not that different than just forking a GitHub repo that already does what you’re “building” with the agent.
Yes but almost definitionally that is everyone who did not find value from LLMs. If you don’t find value from LLMs, you’re not going to use them all the time.
The only people you’re excluding are the people who are forced to use it, and the random sampling of people who happened to try it recently.
So it may have been accidental or indirectly, but yes, no true Scotsman would apply to your statement.
Turns out what constitutes "claiming" an IP on the site is nothing like you’d expect. You don’t need to prove you control the IP. All it takes is embedding a transparent 1x1 tracking pixel on a website, and every IP that loads the page gets counted as “claimed” by you. In other words, it’s just a tally of visitors (or even ad impressions), not actual control of the IPs. So there’s really nothing meaningful here.
It's still an interesting post, because if true I'd still be curious how you'd get 20 million people to load anything.
But the title here is totally misleading because it sure sounds like someone took control of 9% of the ipv4 address space but the actual post starts with context.
20 million is a lot, but if you look at geoip, they are around the whole world; I took 3 random latest IPs and I saw Vietnam, Brazil and Angola. So it's not that much when it's worldwide.
But it suggests it's not a geographically limited website. If it's through a website. It's probably not a ad buy. (Who would burn money on that...)
However the requests are literally every second. So it's something very popular. (Or a bot and they are somehow faking the source address...)
Curiously, these are some of the top countries I see when analyzing traffic from malicious scraping bots that disguise themselves as old Chrome versions on my websites.
So it's possible that one of those botnet-ish residential proxy services is being used here. The ones that use things like compromised browser extensions to turn unknowing users into exit nodes.
Edit: Yep, it's residential proxies, someone on the linked page mentioned a website where you can look up the IPs and all of them come up as proxies.
You can get 100 million people to load the 1x1 by adding it using javascript to an adsense ad you publish on Google...
The number of times my browser has been hijacked from their ad network is numerous.
Odds are, the culprit owns some IP that is running on 20M devices. Whether it's a mobile game. A bot net. An ad. Or some other script/service that allows other machines to make the request on his/her behalf.
While running ads is definitely a possibility, reaching 9% of all available IPs sounds like a crazy expensive campaign. I don't know what the ratio of people to public IP is but I doubt it's one.
20 million unique users is not that much. I don't understand the claim that this constitutes 9% of all IP addresses. It doesn't. There are about 4 billion public IPv4 address. 9% of that would be closer to 300 million.
You're right, like others said in the comments the 9% in the comments is from total active hosts tracked by Censys (~231 million). But I still think it's challenging to have that much reach and unlikely to be an ad campaign. Using numbers from the website bellow the cost of getting 20 million impressions would be around $43,200 on the low-end for YouTube ads and can be much higher on different platforms. That is also assuming perfect efficiency were you we have exactly one impression per IP which is unlikely to be the case.
It could be just reverse engineer how it works for one or few IPs and send all requests in the correct order mimicking what the server expects to see from a real claim.
For this test to be valid it would need to do much more than just that I think
reply