And once the Orient and Decide part is augmented, then we'll be limited by social networks (IRL ones). Every solo founder/small biz will have to compete more and more for marketing eyeballs, and the ones who have access to bigger engines (companies), they'll get the juice they need, and we come back to humans being the bottlenecks again.
That is, until we mutually decide on removing our agency from the loop entirely . And then what?
I think less people will decide to open source their work, so AI solutions will divert from 'dark codebases' not available for models to be trained on. And people who love vibe coding will keep feeding models with code produced by models. Maybe we already reached the point where enough knowledge was locked in the models and this does not matter? I think not, based on code AI generated for me. I probably ask wrong questions.
Hmm, if it were me, I would have asked how his 80% share would have made my 20% a good investment [than all the other options].
It's all about what each of you are bring to the table. It's possible he priced the tech side perfectly AND being the best option available to make you better off.
There’s zero chance this would ever be a fair split.
They know nothing about building technology so are never in the right. This happens often enough that most startup accelerators pre-flag it as criteria to not invest in founders (with an out of balance equity split).
Then why do they need to give the technical co-founder 20%, or even make him a co-founder at all? They either have enough privilege and connection that they can bring in serious funding from investors, future clients, or friends/family/fools, - or they don't and their privilege and connections aren't really worth that much. If they did, they'd much rather give them a few percentage points and pay them a salary, capturing all the upside.
It's a broad over-generalization but it's a good rule of thumb. They must have access to demonstrable money and/or power before they're worth an 80/20 split, well above what most random business guys can bring in from even elite universities.
Edit: A decent somewhat recent example is Theranos. No biotech VC would touch them because they do due diligence on the basic scientific viability of their investments, but Holmes and her cofounder were able to bring in huge tech investors from family connection and even get people like Henry Kissinger on their board, who also helped them get more investors. That's the kind of connections that might be worth an uneven split.
They need to pay for the tech then. Hire an engineer and design team. If they don’t have the access to that sort of immediate funding, then I’d struggle to imagine what sort of in-the-bag contacts they could bring to justify such an uneven split.
And that type of person quite often turns out to be a huge over-privileged narcissist who's never had to work hard a day in their life, because of their family and frat-bro connections, and who will gladly fuck you over without a second thought.
> They know nothing about building technology so are never in the right
I’ve easily seen more start-ups fail because the technical co-founder got pedantic about something with zero commercial relevance than I have where the non-technical founder rolled over their tech team. Mostly because the latter fail early while the former can sort of look like it’s not a trash fire for a little bit longer.
As you say, the unequal split is a red flag. Not the direction it leans.
> I’ve easily seen more start-ups fail because the technical co-founder got pedantic about something with zero commercial relevance than I have where the non-technical founder rolled over their tech team.
Can you think of examples of the opposite? There are a few variables here for technical/business/commercial and fail/succeed so I won’t write them all out, just curious what you have seen to be honest.
If that person was someone like Warren Buffet, e.g. with a massive track of success behind them, then why not. 20 per cent of a billion is a lot more than 50 per cent of a million.
But for random nobodies who think high of themselves, hell no.
It makes sense to walk away even in the game theoretic sense. Many people think in terms of prisoner's dilemma, when it is actually iterated prisoner's dilemma.
Its true in a game-theoretic sense, but I'm actually talking about being honest (and rational) with yourself and what you're able to contribute. There's many other factors that have been mentioned by other people here.
>For those who are unfamiliar with how career progress works in Academia, it is so competitive that even a year or two "break" in your career likely means you are forever unable to get a job.
Honest question. If the job market is that competitive, why are we guiding people down this path that requires investing their entire young adult life? To me, it seems you've inadvertently made a case for cutting funding.
The big question is how should the government allocate the funding for basic research between career stages to maximize the benefit to the society.
If you focus on training PhDs, which is the American way, you get a steady stream of new people with fresh ideas. But then most PhDs must leave the academia after graduating.
If you focus on postdocs, you get more value from the PhDs you have trained. Most will still have to leave the academia, but it happens in a later career stage.
If you focus on long-term jobs, you have more experienced researchers working on longer-term projects. But then you are stuck with the people you chose before you had a good idea of their ability to contribute.
We aren't really. We are guiding people to get college degrees. However, undergraduate education and professional research are both done by the same institution. Further, that institution likes to have those professional and apprentice professional researchers work as teachers. The result of this is that undergraduates get a lot of exposure to professional Academia, so they naturally have a tendency to develop an interest in that profession. Given how small the profession actually is, even a small tendency here saturates the job market.
At this point, what profession isn't "small"? It feels like jobs are declining across all industries except for the most exploitative ones they can't easily outsource.
Since climate change is a very popular topic, so popular that a person's belief or non belief in it will cause people on the other side to strike them down without hesitation... There's power, community, and social acceptance to drive people.
The downvotes to the above comment's parent comment prove my point.
That's completely correct and valid but also in order to see this as a problem one has to presume that that the belief in it, or anything else you might care to put in it's place, is itself flawed. I don't believe in climate change because it's beneficial or not beneficial: I have read numerous things on the subject, all of which paint a consistent, reproducible, and relatable-to-my-life situation which happens to be about a decades-long propaganda campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry to downplay the harms their products were doing to our atmosphere since the goddamn 1950's, one that, as the parent says, happens to make them shitloads of money. Just like leaded gasoline did. Just like cigarettes did, which led the tobacco industry to do similar things previously until they were outlawed in the developed world, which has caused them to simply shift focus to developing countries where they're now poisoning a whole new generation of people.
I'm highly skeptical of folks who take issue with something like "trust the science" because, while I fully cosign that as a slogan it's lacking and one doesn't "trust" science so much as learn about it and see if it holds up, the sort of people who say things like that invariably follow up with something like questioning climate change, or questioning the handling of the COVID pandemic. And that's not to say that there weren't mistakes made, we made a shitload of them, but too many bad actors in that space will take legitimate problems with the response to COVID and use that to launch into things like saying vaccines cause autism or are a plot on the part of China to kill all the white people, or other such ridiculous fuckin nonsense.
And maybe that's wrong of me to assume, but also if you consistently find yourself on the same side of a debate as the worst people imaginable, maybe that's something you should sit with and figure out how you feel about it, and if it points to you possibly being skeptical about the wrong things.
I would also put forward that something I've observed as we've gotten further and further into the social media age is the conflation between skepticism and ignorance, which are different things, and people who are doing the second thing will reliably say they are doing the former. To be skeptical is not a bad thing, even an uninformed skeptic like a member of the general public is fully capable of being at least somewhat informed, vetting sources, and coming to reasonably accurate conclusions without a formal education, however, it is also extremely, trivially easy for a layman to find stuff that corroborates whatever they think is already the truth, stated in professional-looking formats, that looks like science but just isn't credible or worthy of being taken seriously, and then go "look, see, I found this thing. I'm right!" If you find one, single academic, who has an entire rest-of-their-discipline shouting at them about how wrong they are, which is more likely: that you found one truth teller in a sea of liars, or that you found one liar?
To the downvoters (and ToucanLoucan), I never claimed what I believed in, and you don't have enough information to know anything about it. I'll continue to neither confirm nor deny my stance, for the point Im making is IMO an important one. Can you walk away from this conversation with your eye opened to how your belief is driving you to strike? [0]
Here's a near-equivalent real world example: Alzheimer's research has been led in the wrong direction for decades, due to people chasing after power. [1]
[0] >And maybe that's wrong of me to assume, but also if you consistently find yourself on the same side of a debate as the worst people imaginable, maybe that's something you should sit with and figure out how you feel about it, and if it points to you possibly being skeptical about the wrong things.
> To the downvoters (and ToucanLoucan), I never claimed what I believed in, and you don't have enough information to know anything about it.
I didn't say anything about your beliefs. I said other people who say similar things believe these things, and when people say things like them, I tend to assume they're about to drop anti-vax nonsense. That's not an accusation, it's the statement of an observed correlation.
> I'll continue to neither confirm nor deny my stance, for the point Im making is IMO an important one.
I mean, again, I wasn't referencing your specific beliefs so I don't really care if you confirm them or not. But I would also say, again as a statement of a correlation not an accusation against you, that the people who espouse the anti-science sentiments I've been discussing also will refuse to lay down specific confirmations of their beliefs, as part of a larger "just asking questions" fallacious argument, in which they take the position of an unconvinced centrist but consistently espouse "questions" that favor one side of it.
Again, to be clear, not accusing, merely observing. You may indeed be someone who is genuinely just asking questions, the problem is a whole lot of shitty people out there corroborate that position to advance bunk. And assuming you're being truthful, which I have no reason to assume you aren't, for that you have my sympathies.
> ere's a near-equivalent real world example: Alzheimer's research has been led in the wrong direction for decades, due to people chasing after power. [1]
Well sure. Science isn't perfect, it's only as good as the people who are doing it. It's the same way that basically every anti-vax sentiment, measure, study, etc. that you can find leads in one way or another back to former-doctor Andrew Wakefield and his junk study about vaccines and autism from back in the 90's. There are still medical practitioners who believe he was correct, there are multiple organizations that are built off of his research who oppose vaccines, we've had numerous outbreaks of various preventable diseases because of vaccine hesitancy. This shit has real consequences.
However, it's worth noting that both that story and the one you're referencing are notable because on the whole, most of the time, science does get it right, and more importantly, if it gets it wrong but it is being done honestly, it is also self correcting.
The reincarnation bit interests me. I've had a notion that reincarnation is the process of birthing. A child is going to inherent their parents DNA, genes, environment, and situation. Whatever pain the parents are burdened with will be passed on to their child, and so on and on and on. We are [adaptable] copies of our parents.
Im self aware enough to observe the traits I picked up from my parents. I've thought about all the suffering I've been through. If I dont have children, I can be the end of the thread. I can stop the cycle of suffering.
Go on steam and look at the recent reviews for older but still popular fps games. Gamers complain about cheaters constantly and will negatively review games cause of it
You're being disingenuous here, or just missing the point. The point being made was the gamers are demanding game developers stop cheaters... and that secure boot (and related ways to lock down the computer) is one of the primary tools they know to use to do that.
> The point being made was the gamers are demanding game developers stop cheaters... and that secure boot (and related ways to lock down the computer) is one of the primary tools they know to use to do that.
That's akin to saying that, as people want security on the street, mandatory strip search as soon as your exit your home is fair game.
Asking for a result doesn't give a blank-check for all the measures taken toward this result.
I agree, but it doesn't change the fact that it's one of the primary reasons they're doing it. And "strip searches on the street" may not happen, but "Stop and Frisk" certainly is/was. And it was very much done because people were complaining about crime and safety. And it was done regardless of whether or not it was right, or effective, or even legal.
You cannot "prevent" cheating, you can at best mitigate it, it's a balance.
There plenty of way to mitigate cheating in game, but the game industry is focusing on the ones where they don't bear the cost and only the customer will (and this view is in part due to the model of F2P games, where banning cheater is useless as it doesn't cost them anything to create a new account).
Letting game developer having complete control and spying on the device playing the game is fine in a physical tournament were they provide the device, but it's insanity when it's the user own device in its home.
> There is no technical way to prevent cheating in advance without secure boot.
I'm not really sure I buy this. I can't really give a way that can guarantee no cheating but I know for example games like Genshin Impact run almost all the code (dmg calculation etc) server-side. Perhaps something that's an extension of Geforce Now might be the best "anti-cheat" technically speaking.
To run anti-cheat in that way, you need all game mechanics to be run server-side, and you need to not let the client ever know about something the player should not know - e.g. in a first-person shooter you need to run visibility and occlusion on the server too! Otherwise the cheating will take the form of seeing through walls and the like. This is going to boost the cost of the servers and probably any game subscription, and might lead to bandwidth or latency problems for players - just to avoid running any calculation that is relevant to game balance on player hardware.
Well yeah, that's the correct way to run a server, don't send information you don't want the user to get.
But as you are pointing out, forcing client-side intrusive anti-cheat is cheaper, thus this as nothing to do about preventing cheating, but about reducing cost.
It's not just about cost. Theoretically yes, you shouldn't send information that you don't want users to get and abuse. However, in the context of games, this is not always possible because most games are realtime and need to tolerate network latency. There is no perfect solution - there will always be tradeoffs.
Ideally player A shouldn't be networked player B if there is a wall between them but what happens when they're at the edge of the wall? You don't want them to pop in so you need some tolerance. But having that tolerance would also allow cheaters to see players through walls near edges. Or your game design might require you to hear sounds on the other side of the wall (footsteps, gunshots, etc.) which allows cheats to infer what what may be behind the wall better than a person would.
> Or your game design might require you to hear sounds on the other side of the wall (footsteps, gunshots, etc.) which allows cheats to infer what what may be behind the wall better than a person would.
Yes, and you cannot prevent this except in in-person tournament.
Any output send toward the player, even a faint audio queue could be analyzed, and use to trigger an action or display an overlay to the screen, and no amount of kernel-level stuff will prevent that, as you can do this outside of the computer running the game.
The end state of your argument is the game runs entirely on hosted hardware and you pay for a license to stream the final rendered output to your monitor. This is already happening. Soon games won’t be able to be “bought” at all, you’ll just pay the server a number of dollars per hour for the privilege of them letting you use their hardware.
If all surfaces are fully opaque, maybe. The second particle effects and volumetric effects and all sorts of advanced techniques play a role in actual gameplay, no. And that’s only for this one type of cheating.
Back in my day we all played on private, community ran servers where you could easily vote to kick/ban folks, the server owner was your buddy, or you played with people you trust.
Now everything is matchmaking, private servers, live service and that sense of community is gone.
It's very hard to gather full teams (usually 10 persons) in a small communities. Public matchmaking gives an opportunity to start a game in a minute from clicking "play", regardless of how many people you have at hand right now.
Small communities still exist, it's just that vacant places are now filled with strangers.
lot of thing happened, 6th gen consoles started a new way of using online games (no keyboard, no third party chat/vocal, no group chat out of game, no private server), then the industry pivoted away from private server to have more control on their games, then the whole F2P economy then GaaS took any agency out of players hands.
The goalpost just needs to be moved further than is economically interesting for cheaters in general to reach.
Perhaps secure boot by itself isn't enough, but I would imagine it would be a relatively large bump, when combined with a kernel-level anti-cheat. I presume such anti-cheats would e.g. disable the debugger access of game memory or otherwise debugging it, accessing the screen contents of the game or sending it artificial inputs.
What vectors remain? I guess at least finding bugs in the game, network traffic analysis, attempting MitM, capturing or even modifying actual data in the DRAM chips, using USB devices controlled by an external device that sees the game via a camera or HDMI capture.. All these can be plugged or require big efforts to make use of.
>Perhaps secure boot by itself isn't enough, but I would imagine it would be a relatively large bump, when combined with a kernel-level anti-cheat
VALORANT also adds TPM to the mix alongside SB and a kernel AC and yet is still trivially easy to cheat in as long as you have a driver you can use. Granted, it needs to be signed (=financially unreachable by a big part of the community), but if stubborn enough...
I discovered you can mix Nestle instant coffee with cold (charcoal filtered) water and it dissolves fine. Somehow the added sugar easily dissolves too. I also add heavy cream
It actually tastes pretty good. Most of the acrid taste from (hot) instant isnt there
I did this once while returning from a road trip from Boston to the northern tip of New Hampshire and back. Younger and dumber?
I picked up some 50+ year old man with very long brown hair (down to his butt). He was definitely an outsider. Told me stories, how the FBI interrogated him once for having a book (I forget which one). How he used to work as a guard at the local jail, then as a cook at a castle-like hotel (both in the area). How his stress free life and eating local herbs/forest plants has prevented his hair from graying. Talked about his tiny, simple house with two rooms. He told me about American ginseng (illegal to harvest btw), and we pulled off the side of the road to find some. The plant made part of my lips swell a bit. Had that "lots of enzymes" flavor (like how peaches/strawberries/etc can tickle the inside of your mouth, but much stronger).
He said he had an wife in Kentucky that he hadn't finished divorcing, and then he asked me to drive him all the way back to Boston. He didn't even request to stop by his house. I let him out in downtown and he walked off into the night, presumably towards the airport.
Edit: oh yeah, i forgot that craziest part. He said people have been lnyched during his time living there. (Sorry if this is too dark, but all things considered, its hard to believe everything he said)
Fortunately/unfortunately (depending on your POV), there's a constant variable that limits all output, and that is peoples time. Instead what we'll see is the collapse of the pillars of culture (much like the collapse of the music industry, when the supply 10xed and delivery time fell to 0). Everyone will be king of a small anthill.
For a more pertinent current example, all you need to do is compare the mobile games industry to the computer games industry. The cost to make a mobile game is very low, and tons of games are released every day. The cost to make a successful mobile game is still very high, because all the money that is saved on development costs are spent in marketing instead.
Also, the video market collapsed in the 80s precisely because of low quality/oversupply games.
That is, until we mutually decide on removing our agency from the loop entirely . And then what?