Uber needs to prove that they are growing though to validate their stock value, one of the tricks used to be increasing headcount to show growth.
But other tricks include new ventures, essentially public companies and VC companies have an almost unlimited appetite for new ventures, as that is how they keep validating their future growth and stock prices.
Currently financial realities are forcing layoffs, and the AI story is covering for the "growth" validation to keep stock prices going up.
But what's next? After you've fired everyone, what's the next growth story? They'll start hiring again, for new projects, even if AI can handle the coding there is still gobs of work surrounding building a software business or department that needs meat moving it forward.
The end of ZIRP (cheap money) is precisely what ended the new-ventures/new-projects drive among big companies and turned them all to cost-cutting and maintenance mode.
0, yes you will. Or at least most would unless piblic transit were a genuinely better way to get around. But it won’t be zero as it’s bounded by the base cost of operating the vehicle.
Lowering the cost of travel to 0 would mean implementing a technology by which anyone can simply desire to be somewhere else, and they will instantly teleport to that new location.
returnInfinity is simply lying about not doing double (or more!) the amount of travel in that case.
I’m sure that he/she would ride a lot more if it cost nothing, but I think the point is valid: even if Uber could 10x or 100x productivity, they could not do the same with income, because there is a limit to how much people actually need to go places.
That’s true but fully autonomous driving alone might double my car travel. Going into the nearest major city is a pain. So is driving into the mountains. Operating costs and time are still costs. But not having to drive would really change the game for me.
Who said anything about instantly teleporting? Uber could cut the cost in money to 0 but still operate cars which are bound by the laws of physics and the rules of the road.
Maybe returnInfinity already spends 12 hours a day in Ubers, or otherwise has them satisfy all his transportation needs, and couldn't usefully double his usage of them.
It's impossible for them to cut the cost to 0 (without using magic), but that doesn't make it impossible for us to talk about what the cost being 0 would involve. Travel time is one of the costs you pay for Uber's service. That you don't pay it to Uber doesn't matter. If Uber reduced that cost to 0, you would use Uber a lot more.
The cloud version I used was slow and riddled with bugs. Entire views sometimes just refused to load or render, or something.
Did it "get the job done?" Yes, in a literal reading of those words, I suppose it did, but anyone who understands the amount of work that a modern 2.4 GHz CPU should be able to do per unit time would not think highly of it.
Nowadays … my company uses Linear … which, while it does have a sleeker, more modern looking UI … is nobody able to make a good bug tracker?
I haven't looked at it recently but always felt that tools like Jira encourage poor management. Effective teams are small teams, and small teams should be communicating and working together across issues freely and frequently. It's generally harmful to have a manager assigning tasks outside of the actual day-to-day discussion without having to speak to someone directly or preferably in an open chat or thread where people can see the discussion.
And ideally the user facing chats and threads are directly linked in to the development chats or at least with channel notifications somewhere.
Task assignment tooling encourages managers to stress developers out with low priority tasks that often start off with incorrect requirements that the structure makes it hard to correct because it is then directly a disagreement with your boss and there is inherently not a discussion it. Whereas a chat at least has the concept of an informational response to a nonsensical task as being fairly standard.
> Its not slow like the on-prem. Jira cloud version is fine.
Seems like opposite land to me. Back in the day running Jira Server was the only way to get a snappy Jira instance. When they discontinued Jira Server to force everyone to the cloud it was god awful slow and forced us to abandon not just Jira but our entire Atlassisn stack.
I don't 'like' Jira, but it gets the job done. It's so easy to onboard users and assign tasks/issues across orgs. Structure is fairly simply and the filters with subscriptions is powerful. Android app that I use on my work phone just works.
If I were Nvidia, I would give more attention to consumer GPUs to hedge my bets. When (not if) this AI bubble pops, their AI customers will become worthless to them very quickly as they won't be buying more GPUs. And when that day comes, I would want to still have consumers to sell to, rather than have them all buying from AMD because I ignored them.
the only way this argument works is if AMD somehow creates GPUs that run circles around nvidia and boxes them out price wise, and at the same them themselves don’t start prioritizing enterprise customers more. otherwise consumers will choose the best performing gpu possible, generally people don’t care about companies turning their backs on consumers in this way
I should admit this is partly my personal preference.
That said, gaming has been a durable market for decades, and there’s a strong cycle where better chips enable better games, which then drives more demand for better chips.
Yeah but OpenAI's market share is down to 45% from 69% a year ago, they are #4 on LLM Arena behind Claude, Gemini and Grok, they are heavily loss making and winning may depend on having the best researchers who are likely put off.
But the 10M that care will spend their money elsewhere. That is already something, for OpenAI and also for the other competitors these people will switch to.
Enterprise software companies selling definitely need it. Customers ask was this tested? where is the test report?
reply