I think is the classic dilemma where people don’t know how to value their time.

Typical tech worker costs a company around $100/hour minimum. That $200 subscription cost can look mighty attractive if it saves some time or mental load.

I don’t think there is anything about addiction or spooky with that math. I suspect a lot of this is coming from tokenmaxxing firms but on the flip side on our small team, we end up spending about $200 per person per month for tokens using tools like Cursor. We feel the spend is justified with measurable value.

> Most companies would bury this change in a deceptively boring T&Cs update, but we value transparency, so here's what you need to know in an internet-friendly numbered list:

This feels like a really bad defense. It’s great you provide transparency but I don’t want my analytics system writing my code. There are already so many other first movers that are better that I would rather connect to your analytics.

Thanks for posting. I had been in the fence for the past few months of switching. The new AI products combined with the weird UIs had been irking me for a while. This is the final nail in the coffin. Opt-in is a terrible business model imo.

Agreed. While I don't entirely care enough to rip it out of any existing products, I certainly won't be adding it to any new ones.

I remember people cheering about their "OS" web redesign, which was the most confusing and unnecessary UX complication when I needed to go track down a session replay to debug something (They've since added navigation to the top right.)

Agree and I have wondered behind close doors if this is not the mental model. You need to spend money to see what is working this was simply a way to see that.

Why would you think that? Rich housewives/spouses do exist.

The Urus is at least to me the equivalent kind of car. Captures a market that does not appeal to traditional lambos. I could see this doing the same.

Wouldn't the Purosangue be the competitor though?

I am pointing out that manufacturers introduce models to capture new demographics. Just like the Urus did.

I would assume even they would prefer buying something sexier than an iphone on wheels.

You’re confusing your taste to the taste of someone who is probably making a purchase solely on brand and it being an EV.

This thing might sell incredibly poorly but one thing I have always found to be true. The taste of HN commenters is wildly different than target demographics.

Most housewives in dubai buy Rolls royce anyway. It looks better

Ok? Still does not defend anything you are saying.

why would the ultra wealthy care about it being an ev? operating cost and climate impact are not a priority when you are dropping 650k and living in a oil rich ME kingdom.

performance and aesthetics s would be more important, surely?

EVs are legitimately better to drive.

Why fixate on Arab countries? Rich people live all over the world and there are increasingly more emission restrictions. And again, as I keep repeating myself, just because you are not the target demographic does not mean it does not exist. I could easily see someone who does not care about cars wanting this because of the brand and yeah even EVs can matter depending on social circles.

You guys are defending this to death. I am only pointing out that it would not surprise me it fits a demographic they were targeting.

You are not thinking high enough the food chain. I mean heck you have tenured SV engineers cracking $1mm with RSUs. It’s not rare in finance for folks to be hitting $3-5mm with bonus. So that’s what $19k comp a day. If that individual is making $5mm they are more than likely making a multiple of that for the organization.

Even these days, a lot of retailers operate fleets of private jets even for district or regional managers, because it saves somebody like Walmart a lot of paid hours to fly someone from rural town A to rural town B rather than potentially deal with the hassle of an overnight booking at an airport hub.

I still don't quite get it given I have never worked high enough or in a big enough corp. What kind of mission a person earning $19k a day have to do at the destination to justify the cost? I imagine to earn this much their main responsibility is to lobby / influence someone important (at dinners, golfing and such). Otherwise, if there are no outsiders involved the whole thing could be just done online. If it's about lobbying though - does it have to be done immediately and 3-4 times a week?

Another example that comes to my mind is a highly skilled expert in repairing some important machinery, e.g. ship engines or factory lines.

Again thinking too small. Large business dealings are still done in person, who is going to give another entity $50mm or more without meeting in person, having dinner and getting to know the counter party. It’s not about lobbying so much as time in person counts.

Who said anything about 3-4 times a week? There are plenty of businesses with high earners where time matters and I could see flights like these being profitable. Boards meet quarterly typically and they are often preferred to have in person.

Well yea great but why do they have to be there so quickly that not even a private jet is good enough?

What kind of multi million dollar deal blows up because a dude arrives 18 hours later? And what are they doing when they get there that couldn’t have been done online?

Again, time is money. It’s not about arriving later but the efficiency of time. Many different attributes to consider from sleep, to time optimization or more simply a lot of folks don’t particularly enjoy the long travel and it’s worth the premium. The kind of trips I am thinking about are business related, may only last a day or two with zero buffer before or after.

In business face time still matters. Less than prior to COVID but it still matters. Most boards prefer to meet in person.

I like this take a lot and agree with it. The US for too long has been asleep at the wheel on many areas, power generation one of them. China with no doubt has conducted very deep and sustained espionage campaigns and even with LLMs there is enough evidence that most of the initial gains was training off of western models. Again no complaints here but I think it’s important to acknowledge both which can be true at the same time.

Huh?

I have not fully seen or appreciated most of the negativity. Obviously there are exceptions to that but in my eyes it has largely exposed how vulnerable the west is due to poor infrastructure constructs and a lack of building out generation and transmission.

Has this not been true for a long time now? Most companies have had enterprise/business level prices that was highly connected to usage for a what feels like at least a year.

I don’t think it’s weird. Why should a union be a protected class that you cannot fire? If a company can find people to work cheaper than what the union offers why should they have to continue to employ union workers? Pros/Cons to everything. I generally sit into the stance that the free movement of labor is one of the things the US gets right.

They’re not a protected class that you can’t fire, unless the company signs a contract to that effect with the vendor selling them labor (the union)

Is that correct? I thought the NLRA was shaped in such a way that you cannot fire someone because they are in a union. You cannot refuse to hire known union supporters.

I liken to being similar to a protected class that you cannot discriminate against.

Edit: why would this get downvoted? If I am wrong about the NLRA I am happy to be corrected.

you can fire union members you can’t fire people for organizing.

To be clear you can fire union members but not because they are in a union, support a union or organizing to be in a union. Very similar to a protected class.

To be clear you can fire humans but not because they are humans, support humans or organizing to be humans. Very similar to a protected class.