IMO it’s (unfortunately) the public’s responsibility to learn the lesson that LLM’s shouldn’t be trusted without double checking the source — same position Wikipedia was in 10 years ago. “Don’t use Wikipedia because it has incorrect information” used to be a major concern, but that seems to have faded away now that Wikipedia has found its place and people understand how to use it. I think a similar thing will happen with LLM’s.
That opinion does not take the responsibility away from LLMs to continue working on educating people and reducing hallucinations. I like to think of it as equal responsibility between the LLM provider and user. Like driving a car - the most advanced safety system won’t prevent a bad driver from crashing.
We also are working on crowdsourcing methods, but it's hard because almost everyone involved in the development of this project is a volunteer that either works for a company already or is a startup founder (me)... so is very tricky to find time.
Hard disagree. We use both in my company. Google Chat is definitely better than Teams for actual collaboration: it's easier to track unread messages in "Home" (it's the "inbox"), and channels (called "spaces") are much better designed (they are conceptually closer to Slack's channels). Also, it's not crashing all the time. What's missing: the message editor doesn't support nested bulleted lists, we can't archive a space/channel.
I used it for about a year with a small team. It worked well for what it does, but the functionality is definitely stripped down and barebones compared to Slack. I don't remember any performance or reliability issues.
Your comment matches my experience closer than the OP.
A link disappearing isn’t a major issue. Not something I’d worry about (but yea might show up as a finding on the SOC 2 report, although I wouldn’t be surprised if many auditors wouldn’t notice - it’s not like they’re checking every link)
I’m also confused why the OP is saying they’re linking to public documents on the public internet. Across the board, security orgs don’t like to randomly publish their internal docs publicly. Those typically stay in your intranet (or Google Drive, etc).
> although I wouldn’t be surprised if many auditors wouldn’t notice
lol seriously, this is like... at least 50% of the time how it would play out, and I think the other 49% it would be "ah sorry, I'll grab that and email it over" and maybe 1% of the time it's a finding.
It just doesn't match anything. And if it were FEDRAMP, well holy shit, a URL was never acceptable anyways.
I don’t know who they see as competitors in market positioning (ie, who is selling against them on their target buyer’s calendar). But the space is called hyperconverged computing and there are a few other players like Scale Computing building “racks you buy that run your VMs.”
More like Nutanix, Xen, IBM, Kubernetes... private cloud, colo, on-premise... etc. There's a ton of stuff (I'd bet the majority) of compute workload in business that is local/colo and not cloud.
From the podcasts they talk a little about their clients. It's people who want something like AWS Outpost but fully disconnected and independent from any cloud and running 100% local.
I don't think that is the 'main' competitor. But its certaintly 'a' competitor for companies that already have put a lot of their eggs into the AWS basket.
You buy 1 BTC at $60k in 2024. In 2025 it’s valued at $100k, so you pay taxes on $40k gain.
Now it’s 2026 and you finally decide to sell the BTC for the original price of $60k.
Except you’ve paid taxes on $40k in paper gains that disappeared before you sold the asset.
How do we solve that?
(Replace “bitcoin” with “startup stock option” if you really want to illustrate the problem - imagine having to pay taxes on stock options you decide to never exercise)
That's capital gains, which we currently recognize on realization events (selling the asset or trading it). With current capital gains, if you sold in 2025 you'd pay the taxes on 40k at ~15% (depending) so 6k. If you repurchased it at $100k and then sold at $60k, you can claim the losses.
People advocating for a wealth tax aren't pushing for a tax on gains and losses but rather the total asset value. I've seen 1% and 2% bandied about.
So in 2024, you'd pay $1.2k in taxes (at 2%). In 2025, you'd pay $2k. And in 2026 you'd pay $1.2k
Though, usually, there's also a minimum wealth paired with the tax. Again, I usually only see it for things like individuals with over $100M in assets.
For options, it'd still be the same thing. If the strike price is $1 and the actual price is $60 and the option is vested then you'd be taxed on the $59 per option you hold.
This only gets difficult if you are talking about options in a privately held company. But, again, that's not really the case for a lot of the most wealthy who the wealth tax is targeting.
You hold Enron stock. You’ve been taxed 5% annually on the holdings for the past 5 years. To pay the tax, you decided to take out a loan instead of selling shares to pay the tax (you want to stay invested).
Someone discovers Enron is a fraud, the stock goes to $0 and you go bankrupt because you can’t repay the loans you took out to pay the tax on a (now worthless) asset.
Were you smart, you'd have used your enron stock as the collateral in which case both you and the bank get screwed if the value goes to 0. You default on the loan, you don't have to go bankrupt in this case. Your credit takes a hit for 7 years.
But yeah, if you take out a loan against your home and the housing market collapses and you lose your job (ala 2008) you can end up destitute. The stock market is always a gamble and this doesn't make that better or worse.
The situation you're describing is equivalent to paying your 5% in asset tax the normal way (by giving up 5% of the asset) and then saying "I love enron, let me take out a loan to buy stock with!" Buying stock with a loan is an obviously stupid move, and wanting to "stay invested" is nothing more than a rationalization. Keeping the same percentage of your wealth in the stock is already staying invested. Increasing the percentage for the sole purpose of keeping the same number of shares is a bad idea.
And this hypothetical me, having to pay a wealth tax, is way way over the line of needing a financial advisor, so that advisor will be telling me it's a bad idea to take out loans to buy stock.
>You buy 1 BTC at $60k in 2024. In 2025 it’s valued at $100k, so you pay taxes on $40k gain.
Right, and at this point in the argument it’s also worth asking ”pay taxes with what?” which also quickly makes the idea of taxing valuations obviously absurd.
It would force any value creator to sell his creation, which basically destroys the mechanism from which all welfare for anyone in our societies currently originates.
Yikes. So even if I store my wealth in cash, you want it to deflate by 5% annually?
How do you handle your neighbor who discovers he has a $2m Pokémon card in his closet? Is he forced to sell it to pay the 5% if he doesn’t have the cash on hand to pay the tax?
It’s a messy proposition. I’ve yet to hear a clear proposal that doesn’t have sticky edge cases.
> So even if I store my wealth in cash, you want it to deflate by 5% annually?
Generally speaking, that's the point. The wealth tax is trying to combat wealth inequality and the only way for such a policy to be effective is if those with considerable assets wealth decreases with time.
> How do you handle your neighbor who discovers he has a $2m Pokémon card in his closet?
Usually that's handled by having a minimum asset requirement before the wealth tax kicks in. 100M is what I've seen. It'd be a pretty easy tax to make progressive.
> It’s a messy proposition. I’ve yet to hear a clear proposal that doesn’t have sticky edge cases.
I've given the proposal I've seen in a different comment. Perhaps you didn't see it? But in any case, taxes are always messy. It's not as if you can't refine them with more and more amendments to address different scenarios as they come up. I don't think the "messiness" should be what keeps us from adopting such a tax system. There will almost certainly be a game of cat and mouse between the regulators and the wealthy regardless the proposal.
Switzerland has a wealth tax while people like you wring their hands and the wealthiest see their wealth increase far beyond anyone elses.
In From 1965 to 1995 the richest man in the world had about $30-40b in today's money. This was more than the 1945-1965 era, but way less than the mess pre-war thanks to aggressive action to limit wealth.
Today the richest man in the world has $300b, Rockefeller levels before the 1929 crash.
I was a daily drinker for many years. A "1 or 2 cocktails in the evening" type of person. (And of course, 1 cocktail often meant 2 shots, so 2 cocktails = 4 shots a night.. looking back... yikes)
I started a GLP-1 in February of 2025. Lost a bunch of weight, etc.
What I wasn't expecting was that I'd have such an easy time dropping the daily drinking habit. I'm not convinced GLP's will help if you're truly addicted to alcohol to the point where you need AA and structured programs to break free. But I do think GLP's have the potential to give you the initial "kick" you need to drop the habit if you're otherwise motivated to.
In the first few months of starting the GLP-1, I remember losing enjoyment for eating (and drinking) a lot of things, especially unhealthy stuff (unhealthy foods/drinks tend to not combine well with GLP's). The taste of a cocktail wasn't as appetizing or appealing as it used to be, hard to explain.
This was also my experience. I was a daily drinker, but once I started on tirzepatide I lost all interest. Even after I stopped taking the medicine, I still wasn't interested. I'll occasionally have a cocktail or glass of wine, but it's now a once-a-month sort of thing.
There is a point you made here "losing enjoyment for eating (and drinking)" that I think is The Key, but also not what people think when they hear it without experiencing it. Someone hearing that line might think it makes food "unenjoyable," as in "bad." That is not the case. It is "unenjoyable" as in "lacking in a joyful experience."
After talking with friends of mine who are similarly aged to me but have not had the major weight struggles I've had, I realized one of the biggest differences between us is not our drive or discipline (they envy me in many of these areas), it's in the sheer level of enjoyment that I get out of food and drink that they do not.
There are certain foods that, if I have them, they make me more hungry. I can't physically fit enough spaghetti or chocolate pudding into my mouth to satisfy my craving for it. My favorite beer feels glorious all the way down my throat and into my stomach; I can go from depressed to happy in 10 seconds just from that first gulp. And it's just those specific things. I'm not going to scarf down hard on lasagna or chocolate ice cream. While I enjoy whiskey, wine, cocktails, and other beers, I can have one in a night and be done.
There are also foods that are the opposite. I physically cannot stomach muscles or cuccumber. Putting cauliflower--in any form--on my plate is likely to start an argument. All leafy greens feel like a punishment; I can choke them down, unlike muscles, but I'm not going to like the person who made me do it.
But my friends without weight issues have never had these experiences with any foods. Food is just a way to avoid hunger. Booze is just a way to get drunk. There's no strong emotional connection to any of it.
And GLP-1 agonists completely remove that. I've heard it called "The Food Noise." It's basically a re-baselining of my relationship to food back to what should be "normal." Nothing has a feedback loop of pushing me to consume more anymore. Nothing gives me such strong revulsion that I can't eat it anymore. It's just food, on my plate. I don't even feel hungry, the only reason I'm eating it is because I understand at an intellectual level that I have to in order to not pass out in the middle of the day.
It just makes me eat less. I enjoy food every bit as much as I did before, just less often and in lower amounts. I still get hungry eventually and still want to eat and food tastes the same and if anything has a stronger emotional appeal than it did before because I eat so little.
I still enjoy drinking an IPA just as much, and really I enjoy it much more since I have one every few months instead of 5 every night. I could enjoy one every night, but I don't really need to have it, even though it would be delicious and the buzz is enjoyable, I just don't feel compelled to get it and I know it's not good for me. I knew before it wasn't good for me, believe me as the child of an alcoholic I knew it wasn't good to drink every night, but I did anyway because I had something inside pushing me to do it.
So maybe that is what you are describing, that thing that pushes you to do things you know are bad for you, and which you will regret immediately, but yet you feel like you have to do anyway. It's not enjoying something more, it's more like feeding withdrawal.
Overall I feel like there is someone in control now. I can just decide that drinking a beer every night is bad for me and not aligned with my goals and then I don't do it, and when I rarely think about it I'm just not a person who drinks alone anymore and my thoughts quickly move on to figuring out how to make croissant dough or looking for a scene to post to instagram or some work problem that has been bugging me.
Why don't you eat 5 entire pizzas instead of 5 slices? It's like that. One pizza seems like a LOT of food now. Three slices seems like too much. Before I could eat a whole pizza without even thinking twice. I look forward to it just as much, if not more. The first bite is just as good, but honestly seems better since I didn't just have a snack an hour ago. I ate like 5 Takis for a snack the other day and they were delicious and I really enjoyed it, but before I would have eaten the entire bag and not really even taken the time to taste them.
I would say it takes longer to get hungry even though I eat maybe 1/3 to 1/2 as many calories as I did before (that is to say 2/3 less than before). If I ate this little before GLP-1 I would have felt like I was dying and would have been thinking about food and hunger all day and night.
Yes you do fill up faster, and your stomach empties slower, so there is actually a physical 'being full' that happens with less food than previously.
Similar experience. Went through a phase of drinking once or twice a week. Started GLP-1, completely dropped the drinking habit to the point where there is zero desire of drinking.
Now, I wish it could do this for late night sugary snacks as well since that's my crux.
I have heard a few very different experiences with GLP-1s, for some an almost magical relief from addictive behaviors, for others they didn't notice much on that front at all.
So much is about what is causing the behavior I would expect. GLP-1s don't change the way you think so much as breaking some of the trigger mechanisms.
Are you doing the action because you want to do it, or because your body is responding to that mild trigger that occurs, but your pavlonian response is so strong you can't differentiate.
The thing is, those trigger mechanisms break after weeks without doing them, whereas it is very hard to break them normally without some more extreme measure.
Without getting into individual physical differences that occur, expectation is a huge part of addiction and overcoming addiction. Rituals are very often a part of substance abuse for similar reasons. It sounds silly, but consciously placebo-ing yourself can be very effective for people trying to quit. "This medicine will cure my addiction" can be a very powerful mantra for people with a strong imagination.
I've heard very addictive personalities describe it as a light switch being turned off, people who have been on a whole host of different things across time.
Individual differences in medication response isn't just placebo.
Why make medicine at all if essentially you think you just have to convince people of fairy stories well enough for literally anything to work?
I'm in the latter group. I've had little to no weight loss from Ozempic because my issue is having a sweet tooth, not eating too much regular food. Yeah I fill up faster, but by the time I would fill up on cookies or something that's still a crazy amount of calories. So it hasn't really helped me to curb my weight. It has helped my A1c though, which is the main thing.
Windows can boot pretty fast these days, I'm always surprised by it. I run LTSC on mine though, so zero bloat. Both my Macs and Windows LTSC have quick boots nowadays, I'm not sure I could say which is faster, but it might be the Windows.
It can boot and show a desktop fast after logging in. However, after that it seems still to be doing a lot in the background. If I try to open up Firefox, or any other app, immediately after I see the desktop it will take forever to load. When I let the desktop sit for a minute and then open Firefox it opens instantly.
Presumably a whole bunch of services are still being (lazy?) loaded.
On the other hand, my cachyos install takes a bit longer to boot, but after it jumps to the desktop all apps that are autostart just jump into view instantly.
Most time on boot seems to be spent on initializing drives and finding the right boot drive and load it.
This is a metric I never really understood. how often are people booting? The only time I ever reboot a machine is if I have to. For instance the laptop I'm on right now has an uptime of just under 100 days.
My Mac - couldn’t tell you, I just close the lid. My work laptop? Probably every day, as it makes its own mind up what it does when you close the lid. Even the “shut down” button in the start menu often restarts the machine in win 11.
My work desktop? Every day, and it takes > 30 seconds to go from off to desktop, and probably another minute or two for things like Docker to decide that they’ve actually started up.
Back in the bad old days of Intel Macs, I had a full system crash just as I was about to get up to give a presentation in class.
It rebooted and got to desktop, restoring all my open windows and app state, before I got to the podium (it was a very small room).
The Mac OS itself seems to be relatively fast to boot, the desktop environment does a good job recovering from failures, and now the underlying hardware is screaming fast.
I should never have to reboot, but in the rare instances when it happens, being fast can be a difference maker.
What hardware? Up until a recent BIOS update my X870 board 9950X3D spent 3 minutes of a cold boot training the RAM… then booting up the OS in 4-8 seconds, so my Mac would always win these comparisons. Now it still takes a while at first boot, but subsequent reboots are snappy.
Something else to consider: chromebook on arm boots significantly faster than dito intel. Yes, nowadays Mediateks latest cpus wipe the floor with intel N-whatever, but it has been like this since the early days when the Arm version was relatively underpowered.
My guess would be that ARM Chromebooks might run substantially more cut-down firmware? While intel might need a more full-fat EFI stack? But I haven't used either and am just speculating.
The regulation is pretty clear? We just don't choose to blackhole shady foreign (in this case, Chinese) companies from the American internet as a matter of policy. And cannot effectively screen all imports.
Hard to regulate. A lot of the retatrutide sold today is marketed on Discord & Telegram groups and paid for with crypto. It is infeasible for customs to open every last package entering the US, so this avenue will continue to work. The only gov't that could realistically stop it (for a while at least) is the Chinese. And they do, occasionally, shut down a manufacturer for a while. Though not because they are shipping GLP1s to the states.
It’s regulated quite tightly. But if you can’t shut down the illicit street drug market you aren’t going to be able to shut down the illicit make-your-life-better black market either.
I think what’s happening now is about right. FDA approval process for the vast majority of people, and make those who want to play drug astronaut biohacker find it via underground methods. No reason to crack down super hard on such folks since the societal impact is likely net positive - unlike fentanyl or what have you.
Perhaps there could be better enforcement for the folks being totally blatant about it as it risks going “mainstream” and hitting people who don’t have informed consent, but I imagine that’s coming as law enforcement catches up.
IMO it’s (unfortunately) the public’s responsibility to learn the lesson that LLM’s shouldn’t be trusted without double checking the source — same position Wikipedia was in 10 years ago. “Don’t use Wikipedia because it has incorrect information” used to be a major concern, but that seems to have faded away now that Wikipedia has found its place and people understand how to use it. I think a similar thing will happen with LLM’s.
That opinion does not take the responsibility away from LLMs to continue working on educating people and reducing hallucinations. I like to think of it as equal responsibility between the LLM provider and user. Like driving a car - the most advanced safety system won’t prevent a bad driver from crashing.
reply