> The reality is that most of them are so badly managed that competing against them is easy if you're actually competent.
The world is a graveyard littered with startups that thought this way. One of the consequences of wealth concentration and monopolies is that it is insufficient to be better than your competitors because your customers are also incompetent. To find product-market fit you not only have to be better, you have to be noticed by someone that cares that you're better and upon reflection confirms you solve a valuable problem.
By way of analogy, it's not enough to realize that MouseCorp makes shitty mousetraps and the local village spends $1M/yr on them. You can make a better mousetrap thinking its worth $1M/yr, or do the deeper look and realize the local village doesn't have a mouse problem but rather has a problem with too many feral cats, and has no interest in buying better mousetraps and once their attention is gained simply stops buying mousetraps altogether. Both parties lacked competence, but that didn't mean there was a market.
Right, so don't waste time trying to sell low-margin products to local governments. As the saying goes: it's like trying to shear a pig, too much squealing and not enough wool.
> The world is a graveyard littered with startups that thought this way. One of the consequences of wealth concentration and monopolies is that it is insufficient to be better than your competitors because your customers are also incompetent.
It's less that and more that governments and bureaucrats are corrupted to create barriers tot the market and to turn a blind eye to anti competitive behavior and outright illegal practices. For example huge banking corporations have been caught laundering money for drug cartels and got away with fines -- if your fintech startup tried that on, you would never see the outside of a prison cell.
I've been using an LG Ultrafine 27MD5KL-B for years, and it works pretty flawlessly once I set up BetterDisplay with it. This is my primary work setup, and I think I paid around a grand for at MicroCenter some time back. It has worked great.
I am very excited by this, but I am a bit dampened that the maximum memory available is 128GB. I was really hoping for 256GB, which would allow me to run frontier models locally. I think with 128GB it's still feasible to use this with something like Qwen3-Coder-Next and MiniMax-M2.5, but things like Kimi-K2.5 will require significant quantization to fit and model performance will really suffer.
I'm really wanting to build proper local-first AI workflows at home, and I think Apple has an opportunity to make that possible in a way other companies aren't really focused on, but we need significantly larger memory capabilities to do it, which I know is tough in the current memory market but should be available for a cost.
I spent the last day deep diving on what I can do with MLX with local models. I still feel limited, because you have to use quantized models, but I think it's enough to do /something/, so I went ahead and bit the bullet and pre-ordered just now. I am driven a little bit by concern about ongoing memory market pressures over the next 1-3 years, and thinking it's a bit now or never.
Let me know when I can buy an M5 Max Macbook Pro that can run local open weight LLMs. Until then, nothing else is particularly interesting, everything I already own gets the job done.
>You should be asking why 70 million people voted the way they did in spite of the events you describe.
Propaganda, 1 in 6 Boomers being exposed to amounts of lead in childhood that lead to measurable cognitive declines, average age of the US population being on the rise with lower birth rates means most eligible votes are in the age groups most likely to suffer low grade dementia, and the weaponization of social media by foreign adversaries and wealthy elites.
There's maybe 4-5M true believers, the rest are gullible lead-addled old fools who got brainwashed by Fox News. That's the unvarnished truth of it.
> Plenty of folks here on HN and elsewhere legitimately believe that it's possible to do good with tech. But a billion dollar behemoth with great PR isn't that.
To expand on that a bit, many of us (myself included) fully believe founders set out with lofty and good goals when organizations are small. Scale is power, and power corrupts. It's as simple as that. It's an exceptionally rare quality to resist that corruption, and everyone has a breaking point. We understand humans because we are humans, and we understand that large organizations, especially corporations, are fundamentally incapable of acting morally (in fact corporations are inherently amoral).
I like the concept, I cannot donate today but I intend to do so in the future. I would definitely like to understand more about the distribution model, however.
I keep using Claude over other models (through Cursor) because the answers it gives and the plans it creates align with how I would personally approach the same problem if I were doing it myself. The other models /might/ produce a better final result as benchmarked/tested, but how they get there feels like complete nonsense to me.
Weirdly, I learned that it was important to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation due to getting repeatedly dunked on in IRC long before the dawn of LLMs. I have no intent of changing, and people thought I was an "old" when I was younger because I texted with correct language, I'm sure people suspect I'm an LLM now. I don't care, and I don't try to guess for other comments either, I care if the content is relevant, accurate, and useful or interesting.
Great, that means its working. I hope every single country in the world builds competent IT infrastructure. Having more competition will help us to develop more and better technology and have more alternatives, and overall increase the quality and resilience of technology globally. The current effective monopsy of US cloud providers has caused an unnecessary hard convergence that prevents innovation, is dangerous to privacy and security, and unnecessarily hinders national sovereignty.
The world is a graveyard littered with startups that thought this way. One of the consequences of wealth concentration and monopolies is that it is insufficient to be better than your competitors because your customers are also incompetent. To find product-market fit you not only have to be better, you have to be noticed by someone that cares that you're better and upon reflection confirms you solve a valuable problem.
By way of analogy, it's not enough to realize that MouseCorp makes shitty mousetraps and the local village spends $1M/yr on them. You can make a better mousetrap thinking its worth $1M/yr, or do the deeper look and realize the local village doesn't have a mouse problem but rather has a problem with too many feral cats, and has no interest in buying better mousetraps and once their attention is gained simply stops buying mousetraps altogether. Both parties lacked competence, but that didn't mean there was a market.
reply