It seemed to me the entire point of the legal structure was to raise private capital. It's a lot easier to cut a check when you might get up to 100x your principal versus just a tax write off. This culminated in the MS deal: lots of money and lots of hardware to train their models.
What's confusing is that... open AI wouldn't ever be controlled by those that invested, and the owners (e.g., the board) aren't necessarily profit seeking. At least when you take a minority investment in a normal startup you are generally assuming that the owners are in it to have a successful business. It's just a little weird all around to me.
Microsoft get to act as a sole distributor for the enterprise. That is quite valuable. Plus they are still in at the poker table and a few raises from winning the pot (maybe they just did!) but even without this chaos they are likely setting themselves up to be the for-profit investor if it ever transitioned to that. For a small amount of money (for MS) they get a lot of upside.
Honestly it seems like you didn't read the thread. He's not talking about how Twitter itself works but about problems in moderation more generally based on his experience at Reddit. Also, he specifically advocates public disclosure on ban justifications (though acknowledges it is a lot of work).
He also makes an important and little-understood point about asymmetry: the person who posts complaints about being treated unfairly can say whatever they want about how they feel they were treated, whereas the moderation side usually can't disclose everything that happened, even when it would disprove what that user is saying, because it's operating under different constraints (e.g. privacy concerns). Ironically, sometimes those constraints are there to protect the very person who is making false and dramatic claims. It sucks to be on that side of the equation but it's how the game is played and the only thing you can really do is learn how to take a punch.
This kind of assumption is naive (no offense) and reminds me of the denialism regarding Russian disinformation. You do not need to "infiltrate" the site with "agents". It's fairly easy to write a script checking the front page for mentions of China and manually checking the thread to possibly respond with a comment. Before dismissing concerns like this as conspiratorial or silly, you should do some research on the topic:
> the general implication here on HN is that China is the current Big Bad and everything they do is uniquely bad
The CCP is hostile to many Western values (e.g. free speech) and they are a primary geopolitical antagonist to the U.S. It's not unreasonable for a mostly U.S. user base to see the worst in CCP behavior or be biased against the CCP.
People arguing here about US foreign policy or censorship are neither bots nor Chinese agents. I'm not naive in believing this.
> The CCP is hostile to many Western values (e.g. free speech) and they are a primary geopolitical antagonist to the U.S. It's not unreasonable for a mostly U.S. user base to see the worst in CCP behavior or be biased against the CCP.
That's neither here nor there. This is what I'm actually replying to:
> Did the article imply somewhere that China is unique in it's censorship?
And my answer is: maybe not the article itself, but everything that gets said here on HN (where the article got quoted) has that implication. In fact, your very answer has that explicit implication! So you are proving my point.
> It's surprising they didn't test upgrading to 1.13.
It isn't surprising to me. It's stated elsewhere they tried 4 difference version of Go, up through 1.10 apparently, and had performance problems with all of them. At some point you can't suffer garbage collector nonsense anymore and since they'd already employed Rust on other services they tried it here.
It worked on the first try.
That's not surprising either.
What would be surprising is if any of these "but version such and such is Waaay better and they should just use that" actually panned out. The best case would be that the issue just manifests as some other garbage collector related performance problem. That's the deal you sign up for when you saddle yourself with a garbage collector.
It's still a huge whoosh. You're starting at 1.9 and you're testing 4 micro versions to 1.10.. what is the point of that? None of those non-major versions are going to significantly change how the GC works.
They could have tried 1 other version (not 4) and picked either the latest (1.13) or the version that contains the GC improvements (1.12) to test. Usually when you are looking to upgrade something you skim the release notes so testing 1.12 or 1.13 is obvious especially when 1.12 seems to specifically address their performance concern.
If upgrading something avoids a service re-write that is usually the way to go unless you were looking for an excuse to re-write the service in the first place which may have been the case.
edit:
It turns out they did exactly what my comment stated: they tested the latest version (1.10). It's just that this article was published recently but the events happened quite a while back.
Except that you literally said it wasn't surprising b/c gc sucks. You were "not surprised" in response to the assumption that they DIDN'T test the latest version. However this was just a mis-understanding and you're re-casting your comment to make it seem like you were right all along. If you knew they tested the latest version all along then you couldn't have been surprised or not surprised to something that didn't happen.
It seems like my comment was just an entry point for you to shit on gc which, ironically, I mostly agree with in this context.
According to another comment they did this back in May 2019 when 1.10 was the latest. They are only blogging about it now which I guess is slightly unfortunate but never the less.
I've had similar experiences. I had a recruiter set up a technical phone interview with the developer who never called. No brief email saying something like, "Hi, our developers thought your qualifications weren't a good fit for the position. Good luck on your job search." After emailing the recruiter she said she would talk to the developer and "look into it." I never received any further responses.
My favorite is when you apply somewhere and receive no response. Then several months later, you're contacted by a recruiter from the company at which point you've long past moved on with an offer from somewhere else.
