I don't think that is likely this time. Injecting capital to cover losses doesn't bring back the forward looking valuations so stock prices would remain down anyway. Gov isn't going to fund losses for like Microsoft.
The top 10% will not be left holding the bag. They will get a bailout by the taxpayer in some form or another, like quantitative easing (Fed purchasing) or some national security plan spending trillions. Note almost all members of US Congress, both parties, invests in these stocks heavily.
Airline CEOs, Auto CEOs, Bank CEOs have all done it in the not distant past. Eventually, you have to fly the private jet to Washington and sit at a comittee and beg.
Tech CEOs are not as special as they think they are, one day they too will be there begging, like a dog.
My assumption is that most people on HN are making programmer money. $4 - 5 USD per month is affordable even on a junior engineer’s salary in many parts of the world.
The price per GB isn’t as good as the services you mentioned, but their storage limits are fine for the primary use case — storing a lot of plain text notes.
I’ve also had no problems with it, in contrast with iCloud which has routinely gotten stuck for me.
And if price per GB is what you care most about, use something else. That’s one of the great things about Obsidian.
The plain text thing is more of a feel-good argument than a practical one. If there’s a solid export path, the format isn’t really the issue... what matters is whether the app actually works the way you need it to. At the end of the day, your workflow lives or dies on how the software behaves... not on the file extension.
I managed a few artists in the past. Usually Spotify paid something like $0.0035 per stream but it ranges based on where the listen took place. One artist owned part of their catalog so earned the 100% on those streams. The rest of their catalog was owned by a major label where they were credited 15% of the streaming take (which was slightly higher than the direct rate) towards their unrecouped major label account.
I'd say overall though, streaming can be good for artists. It helps keep them fresh in fans ears (via auto-generated & editorial playlists) and provides a revenue stream for the older stuff that would never be selling in stores or iTunes now.
You value clarity and directness in code. You prefer explicit, step-by-step solutions that are easy to understand and debug, even if they require more lines of code.
Without IP though you lose incentive to invest in new stuff. IP is made up just like saying murder is made up. Both are just concepts but necessary concepts to keep society on track.
That being said, I don't know if I agree that the AI companies are violating IP rights.
Without IP, information becomes controlled by centralized online services with DRM which show ads, meter access, monitor your activity, make specializations, and can take it all away at any time. That's the system we ended up with, after humanity failed to voluntarily respect IP holders rights under the old system that let you buy/own content. Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite.
This doesn't make sense. The mechanism by which "information becomes controlled by centralized online services with DRM" is copyright law. Without copyright law, "DRM" wouldn't be a thing. Without some concept of "intellectual property", there is nothing for copyright law to protect.
My point is you don't need the legal concept of intellectual property if you can't access the information. For example, people tried to sell software. But consumers didn't respect software IP and just pirated it. If IP isn't respected and isn't feasible to enforce, then it de facto doesn't exist. So now software developers run the software as a service and only allow you to interact with it through a web browser. Since copyright laws were effectively worthless to protecting developer interests, developers found a solution to commercialization that didn't require copying the software.
It's a valid question of if the rights were actually infringed here. Nothing stops you from reading books and then writing based on what you learned. Just because this is done at scale doesn't mean the output is violating the copyright.
An author has the right to choose who can consume their material, it has been like that for a long time, they can and should be able to at least opt out of training. If I don't get anything out of it, why would I let an AI company train their models from my authored material and then profit by selling the output? It doesn't make sense.
