I get what they're saying, but part of me feels like the cost of the pro version (about $96 if paid annually) is a bit high just for the software and I still need to bring my own key. I think it'd be a better value if I bring my own key and the annual cost is around $30.
Towards the bottom of the article, I found the best tip (at least in my mind):
"Buy month to month first. The clean pattern across every angry thread is prepaid annual plans meeting mid-term cuts. A monthly plan turns a quota change into a decision instead of a dispute."
It's tempting to pay for a whole year and save a couple bucks per month. But I find that all the AI companies are evolving rapidly (month-to-month) and it's best to have some flexibility (i.e., the option to cancel at a moment's notice) in case the evolution isn't favorable.
Not surprising at all. What are "action levels" supposed to do? It's basically a helpful suggestion to take action, but you don't have to. FDA obviously doesn't care about the well-being of anyone.
The decision has got to be 100% political. The level and damage could be 1000x and they still won't act if it makes them money in the form of corporate campaign donations.
This is actually really neat. I appreciate the fact that all the meetings are scheduled up front, there is no live coding where candidates can be nervous or anxious. I think it's also rare to see organizations being respectful of a candidate's time (as you mentioned, they have current jobs, families, etc.).
It does make me wonder of the actual time commitment expected from the candidate, however. Are you expecting the candidate to spend upwards of 8 hours on a coding project? In some ways, one could argue that you might be asking them to do "free" labor. Who owns the work that the candidate provided?
I understand the need to find the best candidate, but I also think being respectful of a candidate's time means not having them to go through extensive interviews (technical or not) that total more than a few hours. Sure, some folks don't work out - but that's a risk I think organizations have to be willing to take.
What precedence is this going to set? Don't want to be on the current government's bad side? Just give them ownership stake and they'll look the other way?
Typical of any new product/service these days. The first few weeks/months are "free" (or included) and then they start locking up things behind a paywall (i.e.,. subscription).
I get that recurring revenue is needed for hardware development. It'd be easier to stomach if they flat out had that subscription pricing locked in early on instead of rolling it out after hundreds/thousands of unit sales. Yes, I know it's "smart business". I say it's anti-consumer practice.
It's not as bad as cigarettes, so totally safer! /s
The FDA (like many other US government organizations) are now just doing the bidding of the highest bidder (i.e. donor) and/or the president. With the Supreme Court's newest ruling, many of these organizations will now simply cater to the whims of the leader instead of following the science, the facts, and being independent.
reply