Anyone can claim they are profitable, simply by reclassifying their expenses as some other thing or shuffling them to separate corporate structure. Until we will real financial audit, the CEOs claims are just a hot air.
OpenAI's leaked documents also said OpenAI was profitable on inference. The small resellers of open models have nowhere near the resources to optimise their models or inference and yet usually have a lower cost, why wouldn't the big labs?
That is exactly the document I've been thinking about while writing top comment :) . Oh, our "cost of revenue" is smaller than the revenue, we are so profitable guys! If we just don't count our marketing expenses, our administrative expenses, and our unspecified losses from operations to the tune of x3 times higher than our revenue. But if we don't count them we are totally profitable guys! If we will just stop all RnD and also stop paying our salaries, support and marketing departments (and also cut 20 billion of operational losses too, whatever that is) we will earn soo soo much monies guys!
Fair to include A&G, but their marketing and training cost is about generating future growth. People say that the subscriptions are highly subsidized as if its fact -- it's certainly not a well-established fact. These people simply don't know the truth one way or another, but portray their not well supported opinion as fact.
I have 30sqm of a yard and keeping up even that amount of lawn is a gigantic pain in the ass. Over the year I plan to get of all of it as much as possible and replace with flowers, shrubs and other bigger plants, a third is done already. Lawn is a crazy work.
Heh, I find the downvotes for the above comment amusing. 100% expected, but amusing. It would be pretty interesting to hear someone rationalize precisely why for example Deadhouse Gates is a worse book than Crime and Punishment :) .
At a guess, I would expect descriptors like non-serious (unlike serious C&P), a lowly fiction fantasy (unlike a documentary C&P, heh), suffering used as a vulgar shock content (unlike being a masterful depiction of a soul's torment in C&P), banal themes of isolation used as a dumb plot device (unlike Raskolnikov's isolation being a brilliant metaphor for an agonizing human psyche), a chaotic cacophony of disjointed narratives and different points of view (unlike a beautiful orchestrated suite of intertwining and supporting themes in C&P), a mindless pulp suitable for teenagers (and an intellectual feast for a curious mind hungry for a proper stimulation in a sea of drivel, in C&P).
I regret every minute I've spent reading Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. The most overhyped literature ever, with an unhealthy obsession by contemporary readers living far away from the epicenter of it all.
They are not bad. But neither they are great, just average. They are also super outdated and missing a lot of context from the time authors lived in. These books just have this fleurs exotique by the virtue of being russian and written in a very hard language for the Roman group speakers. It's a self-perpetuating self-reinforcing cycle of hype. Like a joke a about "no one was fired for ordering IBM" the same goes for the "classic" literature. No one was criticized for including Tolstoy and Dostoevsky in a 100 Best Books Of All Times list, and so they are invariably included again and again.
What's a book you would recommend instead? I quite like what I've read from those authors but I would be interested in something with a different appeal.
Technically it never ceased to be an oligarchy just like all western countries are oligarchies too. People elect some a few of the people on top and then they act on their own absolutely unchecked, plus all those other unelected people ruling us with them. It's a definition of oligarchy. The only partially democratic country in the world is Switzerland, where people actually can vote on a country governance directly and government must comply with results (and not only take it into attention), which is a definition of democracy.
This happens witch such predictability and not only in IT stocks that I started to wonder, if that is not illegal? I mean, illegal in a spirit of insider trading laws, not literally illegal.
If Poly and Kalshi were actually prediction markets, then betting on a person getting shot and then murdering them yourself would both be allowed (by corporation only) and even encouraged. Because this is exactly what a perfect prediction is - you predict and then that happens with 100% guarantee. You are the best predictor and win.
But if Poly and Kalshi are gambling joints, then of course fixing gambling bets is no no, and that is what actually happens. They ban wins of market predictors who actually correctly predicted something but did it by fixing the game. A market prediction service wouldn't care about that, but gambling joint would.
If it's a "market" then why do they enforce "fair bets" and disallow actually participating in a market to prevent influence on the totally-not-gambling-bets? If it's a market I can go play there and maybe even win it completely if I'm that good. So can I go to Poly, make a bet on a market state and then go change that market to satisfy my bet, aka "predict" it successfully? No? Why? Oh, because it's not actually predicting, it's gambling, and fixing gambles is a bad sport. Poly and Kalshi are biggest hypocrites ever.
reply