I don’t think they need to make these announcements public if the target audience is their own developers. I know some Anthropic engineers, and some former OpenAI engineers, and from our conversations it sounds like both companies do rely on internal messaging to manage workplace morale and address concerns. And warn them about honeypot spies looking for secrets, apparently.
So maybe this message is mainly for regulators and investors, not necessarily their current employees.
There are a million little slices of each site/service, where the culture in that particular community or thread or specific comment chain can differ from somewhere else.
So I would say that no, we shouldn’t make the fediverse a monoculture. And with that diversity within the fediverse, we can say that some parts will be similar to some parts of reddit, and some parts won’t. And some parts won’t be similar to some other parts of the same instance.
2 bobillion
What does the first b stand for?
The specific example you used, of Anthropic’s $80 billion loss, does match the explanation, though. It should be closer to $8 billion before the accounting adjustment, which is still a loss, but the other $72 billion is just numbers changing in a spreadsheet, not actual cash going one way or another.
The sample here is people who interact with that specific user who posted the poll. The exact same poll would have totally different results depending on the person posting it, with some people who have very pro-AI professional circles getting pro-AI results, and people who have anti-AI professional circles getting anti-AI results.
This is meaningless.
Pencil marks are prone to issues of stray marks, invalid choices (like choosing two candidates for a single office where you can only choose one), incomplete marks like where there’s only a dot (or ✖️ or ✔️) when you’re instructed to actually fill in the whole bubble. Many of these types of marking rules can invalidate an improperly marked ballot. And pencil marking is also subject to regular old mistakes, like when someone bubbles in the candidate other than their intended candidate, by following the row/table alignment incorrectly.
The ballot marking machine is helpful for making sure that the ballot generated isn’t invalid, and prevents certain categories of mistakes.
Repaying debt is cash cost. But this is convertible debt that could be converted to stock, in which case the holders of those newly converted shares don’t get paid cash from the company, but instead own a chunk of the company worth more than that cash. So the conversion itself would alleviate the cash demands of the company, while also diluting the ownership stakes of any preexisting owner. That’s what that paragraph means.
Companies issue convertible bonds usually because they can get better interest rates on it, in the event that they need to repay it. Or they’re happy to deal with diluting their shares if the company becomes so valuable, because that means they’ve gotten a lot richer and just have to share their newfound riches with the lender.
That’s the tradeoff, of course. If a company liquidates, it pays its debts first, then its preferred stockholders, then its common stockholders. But each step down the line gives a greater upside in exchange for less certainty in getting paid at all. Bondholders get paid at higher priority, but have the exact amount they get paid defined by a specific mathematical formula. So they won’t get any additional benefit from the company becoming super valuable. Or they can get in the back of the line to see what unlimited upside they have from the company’s value going up a lot.
Also, Anthropic’s bonds aren’t exactly low interest. They’re right there at the edge between junk bond and investment grade.
Usually companies will publish an “earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization” or EBITDA as a way to show whether their core business is actually profitable (even if shareholders aren’t the ones to get the benefit of that business’s operating profit). But that’s not a standardized metric, and Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP) won’t define earnings in that way.
The big problem is that the more a company has to deal with high cost of borrowing and huge capital expenditures, the more disconnected EBITDA is from actual GAAP earnings. I can build a hotel for a billion dollars and rent out a bunch of rooms, while each room transaction brings in way more money than it costs for me to have a guy at the front desk give them a key and housekeeping to clean their room, I need to actually make a lot more in order to cover the cost of all the furniture I put in the room, the construction costs on the building, and the interest payments to the bank that financed the whole thing. And if the furniture and the building won’t actually last long enough to where I made all my money back before I have to reinvest a bunch of money into renovations and new furniture, then I don’t have a profitable business. Or if it can be profitable on those numbers but I can’t cover the interest payments to the bank, then the bank will eventually take it over and I’ll lose the business entirely, so owning stock in that company isn’t worth all that much.
So if they’re saying they’re barely profitable when you take out the very expensive costs of training new models, entering big expensive deals with data center companies to build out infrastructure, the stock they keep issuing to employees and partners, etc., that might keep things going a bit longer, but it’s still not actually a path to true GAAP profitability.
This right here is how all of this will come crashing down
No, this is pretty normal, and more importantly, doesn’t actually cost the company cash. They gave lenders bonds that can be converted to stock, so this loss on their books is pure paper loss, the same way wealth in owning stock in this money losing company is pure paper wealth.
These numbers are just illustration for simplicity, but imagine a company borrowing $20 billion and telling the lender that you’ll either pay back the $20 billion plus interest, or they can opt to convert it into stock worth 10% of the company. When the company is worth $100 billion, the bondholders won’t convert to stock. But if the value of the company shoots up on paper to where that same stock would be worth $100 billion, the lenders would rather take the stock than the cash repayment. And because it’s worth $80 billion more, the company will have to record that on the books as replacing $20 billion in bonds for $100 billion in stock, and an $80 billion loss compared to their last statement.
But look at the underlying financial cash flow. When that happens, the company actually takes $20 billion in debt off their books. They don’t have to repay that loan anymore. So it improves their cash flow position at exactly the same time that they’re booking a loss.
The whole thing will come crashing down for totally different reasons, relating to operational cash flow, not the actual accounting shenanigans where one kind of paper number gets converted to another kind of paper number.
“we lose money on every sale but we make it up in volume!”
Does it?
Reuters is reporting that Anthropic’s Investor Day event a few days ago, where they showed their audited Q3 financials to investors, caused institutional investors to shift their sentiment and that they are being pushed to lower their IPO valuation target down from $2 trillion to $1.5 trillion.
Coreweave is down almost 20% this week. Nebius is down more than 15%.
Investor sentiment is shakier than it was a month ago. And for hype-fueled valuations, investor sentiment is a two-way street.
What passkeys can’t overcome is people dismissing the popups asking if they want to switch to passkeys or create them.
I think it’d actually be pretty easy. Just ask:
Trust this device, with biometrics?
Most people will say yes on their Apple/Samsung/Google devices.
It’s been like 25 years since the security world basically moved on from assuming that users could be trusted to act securely. We gotta design processes and protocols that keep things secure even with people who have bad habits.
I can secure my email, but every email I send or receive touches at least one other mailbox I don’t control, of some other user. Same with text messages, social media posts, etc. The digital world we use has a billion overlapping people, some with escalated privileges as employees or admins or mods or whatever. We can’t make them perfect, so we should design systems that work well even with imperfect people.
I think you’re mixing up compromise of an account with compromise of the data associated with that account.
If a particular piece of data is accessible to people of a dozen accounts, compromise of any of those accounts potentially compromises the data. That’s a legitimate concern for people who want certain data secured, whether other accounts with access are also secure. In some cases, it may be best to have an authentication policy that provides a baseline level of protection even for the most clueless users, rather than a system where you’re able to secure your own account.
They don’t need to. It just works to log them in when they’re using one of their own trusted devices. Being able to unlock their phone gives them full access to the services (apps, websites) that are authenticated to that device.
TOTP tokens are often distributed as QR codes, where you can store in more than one place, store/copy/transfer in plaintext between people or places. Compromise of that token gives permanent access to all TOTP codes generated.
I’m not a fan of how most TOTP apps and implementations actually work right now.
I have a secure password manager, offline, nowhere shared, even the passwords are encrypted.
How can the service provider tell, though?
The point of passkeys is to create an authentication flow that is easier for users to keep secure. The question, then, becomes whether a service provider should make user authentication decisions based on the worst case scenario, best case scenario, or average case scenario. Passkeys are a reasonable way to make sure almost all of your users have secure login credentials, even if the best of the best users would have just as secure login credentials with traditional passphrases.
How do we know the conversion of whatever length unit he was using, in modern units?
The entire codebase of software in production, yes. But one thing that people might not realize is that some of our software algorithms themselves, at least for certain algorithm families, are also much more efficient than before.
I thought this was an interesting overview:
https://futuretech.mit.edu/publication/how-fast-do-algorithms-improve
The focus isn’t on memory usage, but the same general trend applies there: when someone discovered a new algorithm that improves on old ones, it can change the amount of memory used to accomplish a specific result.