Yes, the point I was making (and as you point out, have been making for the last quarter century) is that we err when not making this realization -- and indeed, I think the linked piece is exactly backwards because it doesn't understand this. That is, the piece views a world of LLM-authored/-assisted software as "industrialized" when I view it as the opposite of this: because software costs nothing to replicate (because the blueprints are the machine!), pre-LLM ("handcrafted") software is already tautologically industrialized. Lowering the barrier to entry of software with LLMs serves to allow for more bespoke software -- and it is, if anything, a kind of machine-assisted de-industrialization of software.
> Lowering the barrier to entry of software with LLMs serves to allow for more bespoke software -- and it is, if anything, a kind of machine-assisted de-industrialization of software.
Instead of people downloading / purchasing the same bits for a particular piece of software which is cookie cutter like a two-piece from Men's Suite Warehouse, we can ask LLM for custom bit of code: everyone getting a garment from Savile Row.
Appreciate the love, but I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion here: Sun failed to endure not because it loved its customers, but to the contrary because it lost track of them: the company was disinterested in the mechanics of running a business.[0]
As for Oracle and its putative endurance, I would liken it to the Berlin Wall: despite the seeming permanence, it is in fact an artifact that history will be eager to forget when given the opportunity.
Per above, it seems like Sun had a core architectural, technical, and engineering failure with SPARC failing to keep pace with x86, and a business failure dealing with the fallout:
> x86 boxes were starting to smoke the hell out of UltraSPARC.)
> we spent too much time trying to help save microprocessor management from an unmitigated disaster of their own creation (UltraSPARC-III, cruelly code named "Cheetah"
In contrast, HP mostly (though it eventually split into two companies) managed to survive Itanium and compete with Dell. IBM continued to evolve Power and its other architectures and still sells AIX as well as Linux systems. Cray still exists as part of HPE. Apple migrated from PowerPC to x86 before hitting a home run with their own version of ARM.
In an alternate timeline, I imagine Sun still existing as an independent company and being the leader in RISC-V systems. But I guess Oxide is something of a successor?
If Sun couldn't design a good SPARC processor then they couldn't design a good RISC-V processor either. x86 was really their only hope but they didn't succeed there either, maybe because of the same old over-engineering.
Well, RISC-V is likely easier to implement efficiently than SPARC (no register windows, etc.) and has many of the same RISC-derived advantages.
Sun had some very smart people (what is Marc Tremblay doing at Microsoft btw?), and they could also have acquired more of them, perhaps like Apple acquiring PA Semi or Qualcomm acquiring Nuvia.
Also I wonder what might have happened if OpenSPARC had happened earlier, been more open, etc. (Indeed, a main reason why RISC-V exists is that there were IP issues with other architectures.)
Given how Fujitsu was able to make competitive SPPARC64 models for Oracle, it was unlikely to be an ISA issue, and more a design and manufacturing issue....
> As for Oracle and its putative endurance, I would liken it to the Berlin Wall: despite the seeming permanence, it is in fact an artifact that history will be eager to forget when given the opportunity.
Sparkling wine bottles are sometimes popped when the last installation of Oracle gets retired in an organization.
The name is beside the point -- and their character outs them anyway. To be clear, this was a conversation I didn't initiate (they came into my DMs, going off half-cocked about several technical aspects of Oxide that they did not understand), and they made no effort to hide their disposition. We probably disagree on this, but I don't believe that there's a basis for an assumption of privacy here (I'm not your priest, rabbi, lawyer, spouse, etc.) -- and anyone who knows me would know that I'm not the person to be confessing these kinds of sins to anyway.
Bryan, if I may ask, what was the purpose of this LinkedIn / blog post?
Acknowledging that I don’t know you, and that I haven’t seen this private conversation, this post definitely reads like you just wanted to put a former colleague on blast semi-anonymously. I came to these comments to see if anyone felt the same.
> We probably disagree on this, but I don’t believe that there’s a basis for an assumption of privacy here
In my view you crossed the line when you included his gender, his current role and employer, and two former employers.
My intent at first was not to write about this, but I couldn't stop thinking about it: I was not only profoundly disappointed in my former colleague, but disgusted by the disdain towards VMware customers at Broadcom. I was earnest in that it brought a flood of memories back for me about how ashamed I was to (briefly) work at Oracle, and I did what I have always done when something is burning inside me: I spoke my heart.
I understand that you are concerned about my former colleague (though again, a little hard to say that I'm putting them "on blast" when they are unnamed!), but my sympathies lie not with Broadcom but with the customers that they are screwing over: I have heard many, many stories from VMware customers being taken aback by the audacious things that Broadcom has told them -- the kinds of things that even Oracle has the decency to not say out loud. These customers don't speak publicly (for understandable reasons!), leaving no one to speak for them.
So yes, a Broadcom employee shooting their mouth off in an unsolicited conversation with me about their contempt for their own customers shouldn't assume that their disposition will be kept in confidence -- especially when it tracks with so much bad behavior out there!
If you have a field engineering org that can move these players off of VMWare into Oxide (the software and monitoring, etc.), you could be looking at easy picking of VMWare customers.
you act like he violated some high moral commandment by badmouthing a customer. Wasn’t Reuters a sun customer you badmouthed? Wasn’t oracle a sun customer?
Wasn’t this guy you are badmouthing, asking you questions about Oxide tech, also arguably a customer, looked at more soberly?
I just don’t get the high horse. You’re going to defend llnl and Sandia and the nnsa no matter what, since they’re customers? Not badmouthing a customer is the eleventh commandment? It’s something folksy and nice scott McNealy said. It starts losing its charm when you bash people over the head with it in public humiliation rituals like you’re in the red guard or Khmer Rouge.
Well, this wasn't badmouthing a customer -- it was showing contempt for customers, full stop. As for the accusations of hypocrisy: the example you picked (a deep cut!) was a Sun customer who insisted that we disable DTrace for their application so their customers (who were also Sun customers!) wouldn't be able to instrument the software that they had paid for. So ironically, I was in fact operating in defense of their customers. (I have generally told that story with the ISV anonymized -- but you clearly found an example where I named them.)
Broadcom is definitely not an Oxide customer -- and the (misguided) questions that were being asked were not about them becoming an Oxide customer.
Finally: isn't it a little hard to argue that I'm public humiliating someone who I am not naming?
We are back to where we started. When I said in my first message that you basically outed this person, you said it didn’t matter as the tone of the (hitherto private) exchange gave them away anyway. Now you move the goalposts back to the original position and claim you kept them anonymous.
> I have generally told that story with the ISV anonymized -- but you clearly found an example where I named them.
It was on one of the OaF podcasts about dtrace. I worked for Reuters at the time and contempt for their customers was definitely a thread that ran through some parts of that org, even as it made a bunch of us feel very icky.
(I still have a side quest to find / talk to some of the people involved on 'our' side of the fence about this!)
I know from the outside this seems very simple, but it's more complicated than that. Certainly, if the objective is (merely) security for one's children, that can be secured with much (much) less money (and likely was secured in the secondary that the author makes reference to); having nine figures of wealth is not an unvarnished good, and in particular makes raising grounded, self-reliant kids pretty complicated. To appreciate this dynamic, read Graeme Wood's outstanding 2011 piece in The Atlantic, "The Secret Fears of the Super-Rich"[0].
> having nine figures of wealth is not an unvarnished good, and in particular makes raising grounded, self-reliant kids pretty complicated
Sure, but I’m pretty sure if you asked those parents if they’d rather lose all their money to make parenting easier their answer would be a resounding “no”.
Those aren't the choices. You don't understand how the poster passed on nine figures -- but if the secondary sale netted 7 figures (likely), the choice is in fact between having enough wealth to have total security for one's family versus having so much wealth that the wealth itself creates anxiety.
Then have someone manage the money away from you. Put it in a lifetime trust, whatever. The idea that you’d turn down that sum of money because of the anxiety it would cause you is simply not logical.
> Certainly, if the objective is (merely) security for one's children, that can be secured with much (much) less money (and likely was secured in the secondary that the author makes reference to); […]
See perhaps Nick Maggiulli's post "The Ideal Level of Wealth":
> Financial Independence (28.6x Your Annual Spending): $3.5M. Assuming you never wanted to work again, you would need about 28.6x your annual spending to cover your costs indefinitely [$120,000 * 28.6 ~ $3,500,000]. This 28.6 comes from the Kitces research[1] showing that the 3.5% Rule[2] is the safe withdrawal rate for a 40-year time horizon and beyond. This research suggests that if you can make it 40 years while withdrawing 3.5% per year, then you’ll likely make it 50 years (or more).
[…]
> Whether your goal is Coast FIRE or full financial independence, the ideal level of wealth in the U.S. is in the low-to-mid range of Level 4 ($1M-$10M), or $2M-$5M. I know this is a lot of money and many people will never reach it, but that’s why it’s an ideal. It’s something to strive for. It’s enough where you don’t have to worry about money anymore, but not so much that it becomes a burden or warps your identity.
Adjust the $120k annual spend for your own lifestyle and cost of living.
You're not going to fly private, but it will take most of the worry out of life. Morgan Housel, author of the recently release The Art of Spending Money (and previously The Psychology of Money):
> 00:50:16 […] You have the independence to be who you are and wake up every morning and say, I can do whatever I want today. That’s wealth.
I won’t disclose details out of respect for the other party, but no, not necessarily. As I wrote, it was a good deal for the founders and some investors, but not for everyone, including employees. There are many ways to structure a sale, and unfortunately not all of them split the cake equally.
Ha ha -- thanks, I think? For whatever it's worth, the most important advice I have for a speaker is: speak from the heart, not from the book. That is, don't tell people what you think they want; be true to yourself and speak your own truth, in a manner that is true to who you are.
To that end: different styles work for different people. Yes, I speak quickly (or can!), but there's a method to the madness: when I am speaking fastest (and... tripping over my words, I guess?), it is likely something that -- while interesting/weird -- is in fact only tangentially related to my main point. For me, it's really important to have my actual points written on my slide: my actual decks[0] are really important to me, and serve to make my main points -- albeit devoid of the visceral metaphors for which I've become (in)famous.
I'm glad you caught on it was supposed to be praise haha. If someone threw my speech patterns on the table and started dissecting them, I'd probably stop speaking entirely ;)
It is praise; you are my favourite speaker. A lot of what you cover in talks or on the podcast is (or was) unknown to me, but I listen because it's never made to seem uninteresting, there's a passion that comes from the heart (true of the other Oxide podcast staff too). I learn a lot of information, and the anecdotes actually stick it into my brain like thumbtacks.
As for tripping: I mean to say that in natural [non-verbetim] speech, there's natural moments where we find our footing. In a speech/talk setting, it's easy to feel like you lose that footing and fall into the volcano, if you're unsteady. You show that speed itself isn't the issue and you can actually run around the volcano without falling in (–this is still praise, I swear).
Also, I must ask: (when) will the people see the release of Netris?
I don't agree that we have been "bashing" Postgres. As far as I can tell, Postgres has come up a very small number of times over the years: certainly on the CockroachDB episode[0] (where our experience with Postgres is germane, as it was very much guiding our process for finding a database for Oxide) and then again this year when we talked about our use of statemaps on a Rust async issue[1] (where our experience with Postgres was again relevant because it in part motivated the work that we had used to develop the tooling that we again used on the Rust issue).
I (we?) think Postgres is incredibly important, and I think we have properly contextualized our use of it. Moreover, I think it is unfair to simply deny us our significant experience with Postgres because it was not unequivocally positive -- or to dismiss us recounting some really difficult times with the system as "bashing" it. Part of being a consequential system is that people will have experience with it; if one views recounting that experience as showing insufficient "respect" to its developers, it will have the effect of discouraging transparency rather than learning from it.
I'm certainly very biased (having worked on postgres for way too long), so it's entirely plausible that I've over-observed and over-analyzed the criticism, leading to my description.
> I (we?) think Postgres is incredibly important, and I think we have properly contextualized our use of it. Moreover, I think it is unfair to simply deny us our significant experience with Postgres because it was not unequivocally positive -- or to dismiss us recounting some really difficult times with the system as "bashing" it. Part of being a consequential system is that people will have experience with it; if one views recounting that experience as showing insufficient "respect" to its developers, it will have the effect of discouraging transparency rather than learning from it.
I agree that criticism is important and worthwhile! It's helpful though if it's at least somewhat actionable. We can't travel back in time to fix the problems you had in the early 2010s... My experience of the criticism of the last years from the "oxide corner" was that it sometimes felt somewhat unrelated to the context and to today's postgres.
> if one views recounting that experience as showing insufficient "respect" to its developers
I should really have come up with a better word, but I'm still blanking on choosing a really apt word, even though I know it exists. I could try to blame ESL for it, but I can't come up with a good German word for it either... Maybe "goodwill". Basically believing that the other party is trying to do the right thing.
For those looking for context, this is a regrettable response of mine from nearly three decades ago, resurrected because people disagreed with the way my handling bad community behavior well over a decade ago. And for whatever it's worth, my explanation of all of this from a decade ago still stands[0].
I am really surprised that people are surprised by this, and honestly the reference was so casual in the RFD because it's probably the way that I use LLMs the most (so very much coming from my own personal experience). I will add a footnote to the RFD to explain this, but just for everyone's benefit here: at Oxide, we have a very writing-intensive hiring process.[0] Unsurprisingly, over the last six months, we have seen an explosion of LLM-authored materials (especially for our technical positions). We have told applicants to be careful about doing this[1], but they do it anyway. We have also seen this coupled with outright fraud (though less frequently). Speaking personally, I spend a lot of time reviewing candidate materials, and my ear has become very sensitive to LLM-generated materials. So while I generally only engage an LLM to aid in detection when I already have a suspicion, they have proven adept. (I also elaborated on this a little in our podcast episode with Ben Shindel on using LLMs to explore the fraud of Aidan Toner-Rodgers.[2])
I wasn't trying to assert that LLMs can find all LLM-generated content (which feels tautologically impossible?), just that they are useful for the kind of LLM-generated content that we seek to detect.
I still don't quite get this reasoning. A statistical model for detecting a category (like is this written hiring material LLM generated or not, is this email spam or not, etc) is most metricized by its false positive and false negative rate. But it doesn't sound like anyone measures this, it just gets applied after a couple times of "huh, that worked" and we move on. There's a big difference between a model that performs successfully 70% of the time vs one that performs 99% but I'm not sure we can say which this is?
Maybe if LLMs were aligned for this specific task it'd make more sense? But they're not. Their alignment tunes them to provide statistically helpful responses for a wide variety of things. They prefer positive responses to negative ones and are not tuned directly as a detection tool for arbitrary categorization. And maybe they do work well, but maybe it's only a specific version of a specific model against other specific models hiring material outputs? There's too many confounding things here to not have to study this in a rigorous way to come to the conclusion that felt... not carefully considered.
Maybe you have considered this more than I know. It sounds like you work a lot with this data. But the off-handedness set off my skepticism.
I debated not writing this, as I planned on re-applying again, as oxide is in many ways a dream company for me, and didn't want this to hurt my chances if I could be identified and it was seen as negative or critical (I hope not, I'm just relaying my experience, as honestly as I can!), but I felt like I needed to make this post (my first on HN, a longtime lurkerj).
I applied in the last 6 months, and against my better judgement, encouraged by the perceived company culture, the various luminaries on the team, the varied technical and non-technical content on the podcasts, and my general (unfortunate) propensity for honesty, I was more vulnerable than normal in a tech application, and spent many hours writing it. (fwiw, it's not super relevant to what I'll get to, but you can and should assume I am a longtime Rust programmer (since 1.0) with successful open source libraries, even ones used by oxide, but also a very private person, no socials, no blogging, etc., so much to my chagrin, I assumed I would be a shoe-in :))
After almost 3 months, I was disappointed (and surprised if I'm being honest, hubris, indeed!) to receive a very bland, uninformative rejection email for the position, stating they received too many applications for the position (still not filled as of today!) and would not proceed at this time, and welcome to re-apply, etc.
Let me state: this is fine, this is not my first rodeo! I have a well paying (taking the job would have been a significant paycut, but that's how much I wanted to work there!), albeit at the moment, unchallenging job at a large tech company. What I found particularly objectionable was that my writing samples (urls to my personal samples) were never accessed.
This is or could be signal for a number of things, but what was particularly disappointing was the heavy emphasis on writing in the application packet and the company culture, as e.g., reiterated by the founder I'm replying to, and yet my writing samples were never even read? I have been in tech for many years, seen all the bullshit in recruiting, hiring, performed interviews many times myself, so it wouldn't be altogether surprising that a first line recruiter throws a resume into a reject pile for <insert reasons>, but then I have so many other questions - why the 3 months delay if tossed quickly, and if it truly was read by the/a founder or heavily scrutinized, as somewhat indicated by the post, why did they not access my writing samples? There are just more questions now.
All of this was bothersome, and if I'm being honest, made me question joining the company, but what really made me write this response, is that I am now worried, given the content of the post I'm replying to, whether my application was flagged as LLM generated? I don't think my writing style is particularly LLMish, but in case that's in doubt, believe me or not, my application, and this response does not have a single word from an LLM. This is all, sui generis, me, myself, and I. (This doesn't quite explain why my samples weren't accessed, but if I'm being charitable, perhaps the content of the application packet seemed of dubious provenance?)
Irregardless, if it was flagged, I suppose the long and short of this little story is: are you sending applicants rejection letters noting this suspicion, at least as a courtesy? If I was the victim of a false positive, I would at least like to know.
This isn't some last ditch attempt (the rejection was many months ago) to get re-eval'd; I have a job, I can reapply in my own time, and even if this was an oversight or mistake (although not accessing the writing samples at all is somewhat of a red flag for me), there is no way they can contact me through this burner account, it's just, like, the principle of it, and the words needed to be said :)
Thank you, and PS, even through it all, I (perhaps now guiltily) still love your podcast :D
I had a very similar experience, except I got the automated email after two months, not three — you sound like a stronger candidate, so maybe that's why I got rejected sooner, which'd be fair enough. Still, spending about a week's worth of evenings between the suggested materials, reflecting, writing, and editing 15 pages for one job application and having zero human interaction feels uniquely degrading.
I disagree with your point about that being fine. I think it's not good enough to replicate the bare minimum of what the rest of the industry does while asking for so much more from candidates.
A standard custom, well researched cover letter takes an order of magnitude less effort. When it's cookie cutter rejected by someone spending a few seconds on the CV, it's at least understandable: the effort they'd spend writing a rejection (or replying back) is higher than the amount of effort they spent evaluating the application.
With Oxide however, Brian made a point that they "definitely read everyone's materials" [1]. Which means reading at the very least five pages per candidate. If that's still the case, having an actual human on the other side of the rejection would add a very small amount of time to the whole process, but the company decided to do the absolute least possible. It's a choice, and I think this choice goes against their own principle of decency:
"We treat others with dignity, be they colleague, customer, community or competitor."
I wish Oxide best of luck. They have lots of very smart, very driven people that I'd love to work with, and I love what they are doing. Hope this feedback helps them get better.
I understand your disappointment; we are very explicit about why we provide so little feedback.[0] I disagree that it's indecent; to the contrary, we allow anyone to shoot their shot, with the guarantee that they will be thoughtfully considered.
Indeed, I understand your reasoning, you talk about that in the podcast in the RFD. This is why I wasn't talking about the lack of feedback, but the lack of human interaction. While there is nothing constructive to be done about the disappointment of rejection, this part is very much in your power to change, and that's why I think it's constructive feedback and not just venting.
That said, the RFD does say this:
> Candidates may well respond to a rejection by asking for more specific feedback; to the degree that feedback can be constructive, it should be provided.
Even just replying with refusal to provide feedback would still be more humane and decent.
Your materials were absolutely read (and indeed, RFD 576 makes clear that LLMs are not a substitute for reading materials). If you have writing samples that were external links, I can't guarantee that they were clicked through though: in part because the materials themselves constitute a galactic writing sample, we may have not clicked through because we were already at a decision point before reading your external writing. As for more specific feedback, if you can DM me, I'll see if I can give you more specific feedback -- but as we explicitly indicate in RFD 3[0], we are very limited in what we can provide.
As for your application getting flagged as LLM-generated: we in fact don't flag such applications (we just reject them), and it's very unlikely that we felt that yours were LLM-generated. (We really, really give applicants the benefit of the doubt on that.)
All of that said: absolutely no one is a shoe-in at Oxide. If you genuinely thought that (and if your materials reflected that kind of overconfidence), it may have well guided our decision. We are very selective in terms of hiring -- and we are very oversubscribed. Bluntly: it's very hard to get a job at Oxide. I know this seems harsh and/or unjust or unfair, but this is the reality. As we told you in the letter we sent you, we already have people at Oxide who prevailed on subsequent applications, because they found a job that's a better fit for them, or they have vastly improved materials (or both). Finally, you can also take solace in knowing that your post here in no way hurts your future chances at Oxide, and we look forward to reading your materials should you choose to apply in the future.
The em-dash alone is not an LLM-reveal -- it's how the em-dash is used to pace a sentence. In my experience, with an LLM, em-dashes are used to even pacing; for humans (and certainly, for me!), the em-dash is used to deliberately change pacing -- to introduce a pause (like that one!), followed by a bit of a (metaphorical) punch. The goal is to have you read the sentence as I would read it -- and I think if you have heard me speak, you can hear me in my writing.
Too much has been written about em-dashes and LLMs, but I'd highly recommend If it cites em dashes as proof, it came from a tool from Scott Smitelli if you haven't read it.
It's a brilliant skewering of the 'em dash means LLM' heuristic as a broken trick.
Note that I made that claim in 2011. I had tried to research this a bit for the brief period of time that I was at Oracle, and really couldn't find anything (other than the Ellison Medical Foundation). That said, I think my essential assertion stands: given his wealth, Ellison's philanthropic work is de minimis.
reply