I think this is a bit of a non issue. The UI is just that, a UI. Take it or leave it. If it makes your life easier, great. If not, nothing changes about how you use DuckDB.
There is always going to be some overlap between open source contributions and commercial interests but unless a real problem emerges like core features getting locked behind paywalls there is no real cause for concern. If that happens then sure let’s talk about it and raise the issue in a public forum. But for now it is just a nice convenience feature that some people (like me) will find useful.
salesforce is a sales and marketing company first, tech company second. it's in their interest to create a ton of buzz and hype on whatever the current thing is and how they are that thing. Then they go on to sell a basic CRUD app that has to be customized by consultants.
I agree that it's not particularly surprising that if you try to trick an LLM with irrelevant text will make it perform worse.
I don't see this as an material limitation of LLMs but rather something that can be addressed at the application level to strip out irrelevant information.
Why is it a good candidate to disrupt? 1 year in, the “disruptor” would run into the exact same problems if they reach any meaningful scale or adoption.
Asking happy team members to review your company is no different than apps asking frequent users to review on the App Store.
I had a friend who actually took the “unlimited PTO” thing at face value when he was fresh out of college and joined a cool tech company. He was literally traveling every 2-3 weeks and bragging about it. He was let go for performance reasons within 6 months lol.
Coinbase basically played by the rules, wanted to work with the SEC, takes public audits and a 1:1 ratio between liabilities and reserves in US dollars (not their own funny money tokens). And yet they were surpassed in # of users by growth hacking crypto gamesmen like SBF who wanted to drum up the largest possible liquidity pool to use however they pleased with no oversight or regulation.
FTX is a centralized (not DeFi) exchange that used their own coin as collateral and obfuscated their liquidity. This wouldn’t be possible in open decentralized exchanges that many in web3/crypto were advocating for. However SBF made it his mission to lobby regulation on DeFi and a blind eye to CeFi exchanges like his own.
It’s a free cloud service. If you rely on someone else to host your compute/storage at no cost, prepare for getting little or very delayed support. Ask all the YouTube creators or Instagram users that had their accounts randomly shut off and had to do a lot of work to get it back. This isn’t specific to Oracle at all. Or try AWS and get a surprise $10k bill that they won’t refund.
Zoom and Netflix both lost 60-80% of their value in the last year and I don't see anyone declaring them dead. I don't work in crypto but I think there's a bit of a knee jerk reaction to seeing all the vaporware projects being wiped out (rightfully so). Consolidation and pruning of wasteful projects is good. If you feel like the work you're personally doing is positive, then don't worry about people dancing on the graves of LUNA and Celsius. ETH is still a legitimate technology with real use cases.
I wonder if a recession or bear market environment will quickly make this type of advice – that worked well for the 2010s boom – obsolete in a harsher climate. Might be hard to scale your go-to-market by depending on startups who don't want 'enterprise-ready' features to spend money on your product.
Maybe when the open source community successfully executes manned space missions, we can free ourselves from the tyranny of proprietary satellite technology…
"The failure modes are huge. Most notably, the Cheernobyl Absolute Exclusion Zone stands at 1000 square miles 35 years after the fact"
We can also talk about all the tragedies and catastrophic events related to commercial aviation. But no one in their right mind would propose that we stop or slow down the airline industry because of the 'failure modes'.
" simple enough to understand but realistic enough that the student can see the issue matters."
Exactly this.
My least favorite method of teaching is when they dive into a tutorial or example which has nothing to do with the actual problem.
E.g. when I was independently trying to learn how to code in high school (before my CS program in college), I was using some C++ book that started with a 'Hello World' program. I had no idea what the context for 'Hello World' was and why computer programs need to 'print' stuff. It was just a world of confusion. I remember working through it and not being satisfied at all. Why did I care that my terminal was telling me 'Hello World'?
On the other hand I had amazing CS professors in college who would introduce their course with the real-world problem its solving and the ideal end-state of mastering that area of coursework such as writing a programming language or creating optimal algorithms.
There is always going to be some overlap between open source contributions and commercial interests but unless a real problem emerges like core features getting locked behind paywalls there is no real cause for concern. If that happens then sure let’s talk about it and raise the issue in a public forum. But for now it is just a nice convenience feature that some people (like me) will find useful.