Are they repeat customers? What operations are the best to charge for? What were those prices, so on and so forth.

> The good ones do.

I mean, there isn't any evidence other than heresay.

> I mean, there isn't any evidence other than heresay

3x leverage on VTI/VOO yields 20% annual return over the past 30 years.

Even you, a passive index fund investor, can do this in your Schwab/Fidelity account.

Now consider algorithmic prop trading firms with 10x, 20x leverage. You do the math.

For reference, most people take 5x leverage on their house (20% down payment).

You think Citadel and Jane Street are fairy tales? The comment you replied to gave plenty of very pointed evidence. Even "bad" trading firms are disappointed to make 20% returns year over year...

> 30k merges per day

> 25 million CI checkouts

833 checkouts for every merge? That's quite a few. Even accounting for multiple environments at different stages of production readiness, that's pretty weird.

In a repo this large, there are a lot of tests and pipelines that need to run as code is tested, built, and deployed. Each test shard we run in parallel needs to check out the code, for example.

How about 100GB disk space for a checkout. That's pretty weird too. Makes you wonder if they're the best stewards for code. Makes you wonder about turning claude loose on your codebase.

The build directory for compiled code probably gets accidentally checked in and then removed 10 times a day.

I personally haven't dealt with a big-corp level of mono-repo. The choices you make might be justifiable to bring in certain binaries as opposed to resolve artifacts from some type of library repo. Especially if they are doing web front ends and whatnot?

And actually, the lack of an artifact server and some sort of proper knowledge of compatibility requiring a CI pull across hundreds of different projects with every merge is probably the explanation. Seems like there is an innovation waiting to happen there.

For local projects I'm using a repo per module/package, creating tagged releases, and pushing them to a local package hosting server. I can then reference those artifacts as dependencies in the projects that need/use them. No need for complex CI pulls, just coordinated releases.

I also have a template repository I use to help with common setup for different project types so I don't need to repeat that every time I create a new project.

For Python it's easy to create an artifact server as the artifacts are just wheel files in a directory with the server listing the directories (packages), files (releases), and downloading the files.

I'm not sure about other artifact servers for other projects.

It's viable today via network.

I don't think it's viable in the sense that they are still in a demo stage.

Also, I would assume these models are going to get bigger before they get smaller (but they will get smaller over the long run)

> It's viable today via network.

For a set of tasks that almost no one would use a robot for...

Sounds horrible, but plausible.

Now they extracted the value from interoperable open systems, they would love to replace it with closed proprietary systems.

They may be running a linter and don't even realize it. Many LLMs do this by default, aka, as you say, follow best practices.

They are not, according to recent SonarQube scans. Current LLMs don't run linters by default AFAIK, you have to deliberately integrate them.

Or just tell them to integrate them. Which I guess takes some knowledge/experience to even ask for. Then again, LLM know it too; in fact, currently, if you let them set up a project, they overengineer the heck out of it by integrating more "best practices" at once that's reasonable.

I'm not sure who is recommending that, but if it is in the general channel it could be the proverbial bad guys making that recommendation in order to grab more account credentials.

If you ask a model, they will generally tell you where to get data. Modern frontier models have the large advantage of having tens if not hundreds of millions of users providing use cases to train against to improve their responses.

Nothing fundamentally changed when we "discovered" that we weren't the center of the universe, or when we "discovered" that we aren't the only tool users.

There is no prize and no trumpets that will play if humanity agreed we understand what consciousness is or whether or not something qualifies as conscious.

So weird, cause it seems a lot of services are suddenly adding them. Huh, wonder what changed?