Stock prices are very forward looking, so if half the hype being sold about AI is true I would expect most software-centric companies to be devalued by wall-street (as the test, deploy, support should be automated in the coming years...according to the AI CEO's).
However, if I was a wall street analyst and believed the AI dreams I would further be concerned that software companies aren't taking advantage of the last remnants of value before software (and maybe labor) values go to zero.
If you've got a gold mine and have recently built the most efficient shovels in the world, why are they not bringing in mass amounts of workers to utilize these shovels before all the neighboring mines. Once all that gold is on the market, the price crashes so it's better to be one of the first mines to get in and dig out all possible value first.
I think you either don't believe in the AI hype, which means a lot of silicon valley companies are tremendously overvalued. Or you do, in which case another huge part of silicon valley is overvalued especially when they are not looking to out-innovate their peers (as evidenced by downsizing), but just riding the wave of AI until what they are selling has no marginal value over some guy coding alone in his bedroom. SV is putting itself into a weird position, but still has some time for financial buffoonery before the party stops.
>If you've got a gold mine and have recently built the most efficient shovels in the world, why are they not bringing in mass amounts of workers to utilize these shovels before all the neighboring mines
Because they are completely consumed by the need to increase margins, which they think they will be able to do it with AI by laying off a lot of people. But Saas economy is connected and based on per user pricing, so as layoffs continue, Saas economy is showing its biggest weakness. All of Saas companies also seem to embrace AI so much that they would rather add another summarise button rather than actually making something which cant be copied easily by competitors.
From a US perspective at least, you are right but also wrong. Like yes, it's cheaper to buy raw potatoes and dried beans and cook healthy food vs. ultra-processed "junk food." However, when most people attempt to eat healthy they do not opt for dried beans and potatoes every day. There is a huge time cost to preparing those ingredients.
And anecdotally, when I am eating healthier I am opting for a larger range of ingredients. Probably to keep my mouth interested as I am not getting the food that's been engineered to be perfect to my palate. While potatoes and beans are in my diet, I am also opting for a lot of vegetables that are more expensive, paying more for fresh herbs and interesting spices. I am almost always buying canned beans, sauces, and other foods with some processing to speed up prep time.
I think your analysis suffers from comparing processed food engineered to taste great to the blandest, driest raw ingredients. Factoring in the time and secondary ingredients to make those raw ingredients taste great adds a lot of cost. Add in the cost of more varied ingredients bc very few people want to eat beans, potatoes, rice, and bland chicken every day. And further, you're missing the savings processed foods add by being shelf stable. They can sit on a shelf or in a freezer for months or years vs. fresh produce with a much shorter lifespan.
So yes you can eat very cheap and very healthy, the vast majority of people will loathe that life over time. You can eat kind of cheap, very healthy, with a limited number of ingredients and have things taste great if you have a LOT of time to devote to cooking, this will still not satisfy many.
I just want to clarify that I'm obviously not suggesting to eat 3500 calories of beans daily, and that's it. Just like I did not straw-man OP by claiming he was arguing that we should live on 100% doritos.
I just made a simple comparison between two food types, on the one had the example OP gave (doritos), and on the other hand the most common staple foods eaten in the world, like grains and legumes.
Again if I have to repeat that, the most common staple foods in the world.
That I hope does enough to dissuade you from making the argument that eating these ingredients is a ridiculous endeavor. It's actually what the majority of healthy humans eat on this planet for centuries, the standard, the norm.
It's for anyone obese to figure out why they don't apply this norm.
Take legumes for example, cooked as a Daal it is eaten by more than a billion people all the time. 20 to 30 different types of pulses are cooked, and hundreds of recipies exist. If you walk into your local Indian restaurant, you'll experience a wide range of intense flavors. To say these are the blandest ingredients is incorrect, virtually everyone would prefer to eat such food daily compared to doritos for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
The idea that ultra-processed foods are a staple in my diet, is insanity. I'd be disgusted. I love ultra-processed foods as an occasional snack, not as a diet. My diet is healthy, affordable and tasty. Google and youtube are full of examples of affordable, tasty meals.
Minimal processing is completely fine by the way. There's little wrong with a good canned bean for example, great shelf life, minimal salt, maximal convenience, good nutrition, good price. Thrown into a salad with a simple dressing of olive oil and lemon juice, with some cut vegetables, gives a complete meal. Not more expensive than doritos, healthy, full of vitamins, calories, low glycemic index, protein, and 'cooking' is a matter of throwing the ingredients in a bowl and mixing, childs' play.
Same with the daals I mentioned, mostly a matter of throwing ingredients into a pot. Cooks itself with no supervision in less than half an hour while you're on your phone. Stores 5 days in the fridge or months in the freezer. Can be a great breakfast or dinner multiple times a week.
There's just tons of these options that are delicious and easy, cheap and quick, enjoyed by billions. Obese people just need better education and mentorship in my opinion. I could never be fat because my parents and environment showed me normal food culture, without it I'd probably be fat. I truly believe in the power of mentorship here, which isn't properly institutionalised or commercialised, which is why so many people lack it.
I agree here. I more often see bakeries selling sandwiches that they make in house (although no clue as to the volume/financials of it), but rarely (never?) see sandwich shops doing in-house baking. The independent ones out-source to a bakery and if it's a well known bakery, they will advertise where they get their bread.
Though I should point out that this is not baking, but simply putting premade delivered dough into an oven. The dough is baked, yes, but this is not what people mean by baking.
Don't they just heat up frozen/pre-made bread? I don't know...just I don't think they have enough room to be a real bakery. Also, corporate financials would have centralized that a long time ago.
No, subway and panera do the same thing. Fresh premade dough is delivered every night, refrigerated. At Panera, a baker runs it through the oven overnight and finishes baking just before open. Subway throws dough in the oven as needed throughout the day, they have much higher volume.
Frozen dough doesn't come out the same, nor does reheated pre-baked bread. It's fresh it just isn't made from scratch there in the store.
There's a couple dozen fresh dough facilities scattered throughout the US that serve all of these restaurants that need fresh bread, but without the cost of paying someone to mix flour locally.
Domino's does (or did) the same when I worked there. Refrigerated dough delivered from regional commissaries where they make it by the truckload. Some independent pizzarias make their own in the store but I would guess most franchises/chains get it delivered.
Pretty much all these franchise chains operate on hub and spoke for their fresh baked stuff.
The thing you buy at 6am (or 6pm, lol) was in an oven or a mixer (depending on whether the chain in question is baking on site or at the hub) at 12am that morning and on a truck at 3:30.
It never made sense to blame AI in the first place for tech layoffs. You have a new tool that you think can supercharge your employees, make them ~10x productive, be leveraged to disrupt all sorts of industries, and have the workforce best suited to learn and use these tools to their full potential. You think the value of labor may soon collapse, but there are piles of money to be made before that happens.
If you truly believed that, you would be spinning up new projects and offshoots as this is a serious arms race with a ton of potential upside (not just in developing AI, but in leveraging it to build things cheaper). Allegedly every dollar you spent on an engineer is potentially worth 10x(?) what it was a couple years ago. Meaning your profit per engineer could soar, but tech companies decided they don't want more profit? AI is mostly solved and the value of labor has already collapsed? Or AI is a nice band-aid to prop up a smaller group of engineers while we weather the current economic/political environment and most CXO's don't believe there are piles of money to be had by leveraging AI now or the near future.
> you would be spinning up new projects and offshoots
If the engineers can 10x their output, this actually exposes the product leadership since I find it unlikely that they can 10x the number of revenue generating projects or 10x their product spec development.
I’ve had this same thought, although less well-articulated:
AI is supposedly going to obviate the need for white collar workers, and the best all the CEOs can come up with is the exact current status quo minus the white collar workers?
> Allegedly every dollar you spent on an engineer is potentially worth 10x(?) what it was a couple years ago. Meaning your profit per engineer could soar, but tech companies decided they don't want more profit?
Exactly, so many of these claims are complete nonsense. I'm supposed to believe that boards/investors would be fine with companies doing massive layoffs to maintain flat/minuscule growth, when they could keep or expand their current staffing and massively expand their market share and profits with all this increased productivity?
It's ridiculous. If this stuff had truly increased productivity at the levels claimed we would see firms pouring money into technical staff to capitalize on this newfound leverage.
Earlier this year was playing around with the idea of creating an app to track job applications and the subsequent interview process for candidates. Then using the data to give users insights into companies and roles and how responsive they are. So (with enough adoption) one could see how long they take to respond or even see other candidates they had responded to for a specific position (maybe even allow competing candidates to chat? or see where others are in the interview pipeline).
I could not figure out a way to painlessly gather this info without monitoring users' emails (privacy nightmare) or having users forward emails to the app (too painful/not conducive to user adoption). But if anyone has any ideas how to get around that?
I think the primary obstacle isn't the data ingestion method, but the fact that companies treat the recruitment lifecycle as a proprietary black box. From an HR perspective, transparency is a liability, not an asset. They have zero incentive to cooperate with an external 'tracking' tool because:
1Information Asymmetry is Power: If candidates knew exactly where they stood or how many 'ghost' positions existed, the company would lose its leverage in salary negotiations and timeline control.
2Legal and PR Risk: Making the pipeline visible exposes a company to accusations of bias or 'unfavorable' hiring patterns. 'Privacy' is often used here as a convenient shield to hide inefficiency or lack of intent.
Even if you solved the email-scraping problem, you'd likely face Terms of Service (ToS) roadblocks or even legal threats from major corporations claiming you are 'scraping' or 'misrepresenting' their internal processes.
The 'pain' of user adoption isn't just about email forwarding; it's about the fact that candidates are often too intimidated to participate in a system that might be seen as 'adversarial' to the very companies they are trying to join. We aren't just missing a tool; we are missing a safe harbor for candidate data sharing.
Might be wrong about this, but being so far removed and seemingly immunologically resistant is exactly what makes it a dangerous combination. Viruses mutate and recombine at an astonishing rate, so 99.9999% (?) of viral entities won't be able to make the jump between these species, but the one that can might have devastating consequences as it will be wildly different from anything that has infected rats before (and from there it's more likely to infect other mammal populations).
The more exposure between these populations the higher the likelihood that a crossover event occurs.
high mutation rate != high crossover rate, and immunological resistance != susceptibility to novel evolution. (it's actually the other way around)
Also to be super clear, I'm not saying rats are immune to bat viruses, I'm just saying in reality it's is too divergent for functional crossspecies transmission and both rats and bats already have their own established, evolved coronavirus ecosystems that solve the same problems (like furin cleavage above). It seems to me near impossible it could actually happen.
It’s incredibly common for bats and rats to be coinfected with the same viruses… this is literally why we were looking at pangolins and raccoon dogs and mink for SC2 and at masked palm civets and ferrets for SC1. The term of art here is “intermediate host”.
The virus doesn’t need to make the animal sick to increase its human transmission risk, it just needs to infect its cells and be in the same host as other circulating viruses to get the crossover and recombination events.
From early host analysis,
> For a precursor virus to acquire the genomic features suitable for human ACE2 receptor binding, an animal host would likely have to have a high population density to allow natural selection to proceed efficiently (27). It is interesting to note that rodent betacoronaviruses have the polybasic cleavage site (38). Considering the above, surveillance and whole genomic analysis of CoVs from rodents are important to elucidate whether these species have any role in the transmission cycle of the virus and to detect the emergence of possible recombinants involving CoVs from these species and those from bats. However, there is not yet any evidence on the role of rodents or squirrels as intermediate hosts.
Or more direct examination of the FCS issue between rats and bats:
> Here, we examine the spike protein across coronaviruses identified in both bat and rodent species and address the role of furin as an activating protease. Utilizing two publicly available furin prediction algorithms (ProP and PiTou) and based on spike sequences reported in GenBank, we show that the S1/S2 furin cleavage site is typically not present in bat virus spike proteins but is common in rodent-associated sequences, and suggest this may have implications for zoonotic transfer. We provide a phylogenetic history of the Embecoviruses (betacoronavirus lineage 2a), including context for the use of furin as an activating protease for the viral spike protein. From a One Health perspective, continued rodent surveillance should be an important consideration in uncovering novel circulating coronaviruses.
Too much conflation going on at this point, feels like we’re getting to the point of talking past each other. My understanding is: crossspecies jumps need cellular compatibility, not just proximity. Resistance makes a host a dead end, not a mixing vessel.
“Intermediate host” means one the virus can actually replicate in, not just be near. And parallel evolution isn’t the same thing as recombination.
I guess we are getting past each other. Not all viruses have the crosspieces compatibility, but many coronaviruses do. Rodents are extremely common intermediate hosts for bat viruses that later infect other animals. It’s a speculated source of a pig outbreak in China;
A possible scenario for such transmission may include bats infected with HKU2-like CoVs preying on insects near pig facilities, dropping contaminated feces that were later introduced into the pens somehow, by pig feed or some kind of animal (Fig. 4). According to our onsite observation in 2017, rodents were frequently visible in these pig farms. Notably, bat HKU2-like CoVs are clustered with rat CoVs in the genus Alphacoronavirus (Fig. 3). As we found that SeACoV infects different cell lines originating from rodents, and mice may be susceptible to SeACoV experimental infection (Yang et al., 2019b), we hypothesize that in such field conditions, rodents (especially wild rats) in the farms may eat pig feed contaminated by bat feces, becoming carriers of SeACoV (Fig. 4). Alternatively, if pigs became infected and shed SeACoV-positive feces, the virus could begin circulating in pig facilities. Contamination of pig feed, pig feces and water supplies by rodents could accumulate and develop into outbreaks of diarrhea in neonatal piglets (Fig. 4). Future studies on identifying HKU2-like CoV positive samples in rodents near pig farms are warranted to test this hypothesis.
Many rat coronaviruses are closer evolutionarily to specific bat coronaviruses than other closely related bat coronaviruses;
That's like saying smoke detectors should cost thousands of dollars bc they can save a 500K+ building. That's a poor way to look at value in these situations. It's cheap and easy to make, so it should be cheap to the consumer if there weren't all sorts of red-tape and opaque pricing schemes used as an excuse to prop of extortion.
Why is that a poor way of looking at the situation? The reason smoke detectors don't cost thousands of dollars is that there are lots of different smoke detectors competing the price down.
It also prevents wages from rising, can't find anymore local talent at 80K/year so you hire H1B at that wage. If that didn't happen, wages would rise until they found someone local. I think something like equal pay and then a 10-20% fee that is funneled into american education/up-skilling efforts.
Wages must rise to simulate local supply. If instead a foreign worker is hired and wages do not rise the local supply is not stimulated and the foreign worker being a short term solution causes a growing long-term problem: a growing inadequate local supply of high skilled labor.
And if foreign workers are a "better deal" because they take more abuse (due to terms of their immigration) this further disincentives fair competition and makes the long-term problem larger.
Well that's sort of the fun things about psychiatric "disorders", in many of them you can genuinely ask is this difference with the brain actually harmful unto itself or is it harmful because of the way society is set up?
I have struggled with this myself with ADHD where I think my brain is great and it is society that is wrong as many of the ways I do things/see things/operate are subtly shunned by society and the way it works. Everything from the typical 9-5 (my brain works best 11-7), to most white collar careers revolving around stationary work at a desk (I love difficult mental work, but think better when I'm moving around), etc.
I don't think my brain is wrong or performing poorly, I excelled at school but did not learn much from lecture style formats (figured out how to study on my own). But I have gone back and forth with medication because it is very, very difficult to construct my life in a way that plays to my strengths when they are so different than the norm. Medication helps my brain fit into society better, but I don't think it improves my brain function.
I date men and don't think going against TOS or laws is okay even in the name of 'safety'. This app doesn't bother me and frankly I think more apps like this should be allowed, but it is hypocritical to think this should be allowed to exist and many others not.
However, if I was a wall street analyst and believed the AI dreams I would further be concerned that software companies aren't taking advantage of the last remnants of value before software (and maybe labor) values go to zero.
If you've got a gold mine and have recently built the most efficient shovels in the world, why are they not bringing in mass amounts of workers to utilize these shovels before all the neighboring mines. Once all that gold is on the market, the price crashes so it's better to be one of the first mines to get in and dig out all possible value first.
I think you either don't believe in the AI hype, which means a lot of silicon valley companies are tremendously overvalued. Or you do, in which case another huge part of silicon valley is overvalued especially when they are not looking to out-innovate their peers (as evidenced by downsizing), but just riding the wave of AI until what they are selling has no marginal value over some guy coding alone in his bedroom. SV is putting itself into a weird position, but still has some time for financial buffoonery before the party stops.
reply