Ah, I got it. Yeah, it makes sense, WP.com is moderately likely to keep working fine probably, it’s just that it would make me nervous at this stage. I just don’t think he can do anything to really “punish” Bluehost if they’re using his software in some way that displeases him. WPEngine’s mistake was getting tangled up into a business relationship where they were depending on listings and APIs and things. Although, it probably seemed like a good idea until their business counterpart went off the deep end.

It’s a pretty hard thing to hold back the tsunami of assholes who descend on a company once it starts making above a certain amount of money, who want to use it for evil.

Yeah but why would the company run by the crazy person be the only safe place?

It’s open source. Just find a different host that isn’t run by a known unstable human. Literally any other. That would be my feeling on it, at least.

Yes yes this is a very good point, stay well clear of Wordpress.com, Automattic, or any similar nonsense. All I meant by “Wordpress hosting” was managed hosting from some third-party place like Bluehost or Hostinger. The software is fine, it’s all open source and the worst that will happen is 6 months from now, it’s not getting a lot of feature updates because the core company that was making it has imploded completely, and someone from the community has taken over security updates.

But yes you need to stay clear of the clusterfuck while it’s going on. Don’t use Wordpress.com or anything adjacent to it.

Edit: Wait, I didn’t even read closely enough. Why would Wordpress.com be safe? I had some vague impression it was connected with Automattic in some way, although I’m not sure, maybe it is just one of the third-party companies. I just feel like anything that’s in any way adjacent to Automattic or anything “official” about Wordpress would be best avoided for a while.

Yeah. I’ve run plenty of services from a computer sitting in someone’s office, or in my living room, while they’re in-production-while-in-development. Sometimes it makes sense. But it’s just not something you want to deliberately aim for as the solution. What if the power goes out? What if your motherboard dies? What if the toilet overflows when you’re not there, and floods the place?

Just get a dedicated service and pay them their $10/month and have them worry about all that crap for you.

It’ll be vastly cheaper and easier to just get hosting somewhere.

Wordpress hosting (edit: THIRD PARTY Wordpress hosting, Bluehost and Hostinger are decent I think, see below) is fine for most small businesses and starts at about $10/mo. You can go fancier and more reliable and go up to $30/mo or something, or if you really need your own VPS you can go with Vultr or Hostinger and get a pretty similar price range for pretty much whatever you want to do.

I think the only reason to self-host is if you have some crazy special hardware or legal issue, or your own dev stuff that you don’t want/need to push to “the cloud” to put it online. Otherwise it’s such a buyer’s-choice market that it’s hard to justify.

Hey, can you summarize the core argument of this for me? Specifically with an eye to its broader implications about the AI sector and the technology industry as it currently stands in its current form today.

I’ll analyze the core argument of this piece and its broader implications.

The article’s central argument is that DeepSeek’s recent breakthrough has exposed fundamental flaws in how Western tech companies, particularly OpenAI and Anthropic, have approached AI development. The author contends that these companies weren’t actually innovating but rather perpetuating what they call a “Rot Economy” - a system where companies burn through massive amounts of capital while creating an illusion of inevitable progress and necessary scale.

The key revelation isn’t just that DeepSeek created more efficient models, but that Western AI companies apparently never seriously tried to do so. The author argues this wasn’t because they couldn’t, but because they had no incentive to - they were operating in a system that rewarded spending and scale rather than efficiency and innovation. They had convinced investors and the market that the only path forward was through ever-larger models requiring ever-more expensive infrastructure.

The broader implications about the current state of the technology industry are particularly damning:

1. The modern tech industry, particularly in AI, has become fundamentally anti-innovative. Rather than solving real problems efficiently, it’s oriented around maintaining narratives that justify continued capital accumulation.
2. Silicon Valley has lost its “scrappy builder” spirit. Instead of finding clever solutions to constraints (as DeepSeek did), major companies simply throw money and resources at problems.
3. The venture capital and tech media ecosystem has become complicit in this dynamic, uncritically accepting narratives about necessary scale and inevitable progress while failing to ask basic questions about efficiency and practical value.

The author suggests this represents a deeper crisis in American tech innovation - the industry has become dominated by what they call “management consultants that lead teams of engineers to do things based on vibes” rather than genuine technological problem-solving. This has created an environment where companies compete not on actual innovation or efficiency, but on their ability to raise and spend capital while maintaining compelling narratives about future potential.

The piece concludes that much of the current AI boom has been essentially a confidence game - not because the technology doesn’t work, but because the companies developing it have been more focused on maintaining narratives that justify their continued fundraising than on creating genuinely valuable and sustainable products. DeepSeek’s achievement matters not just because it created more efficient models, but because it demonstrated that the emperor had no clothes - that the massive infrastructure and spending of Western AI companies wasn’t actually necessary for technological progress.

This suggests a potential inflection point for the tech industry, where the narrative-driven, capital-intensive model of innovation may be reaching its limits, potentially forcing a return to more genuine technological problem-solving and efficiency-driven development.

My AI summarizer is superior to your AI summarizer. 😃

He thinks everyone in the tech industry is a moustache twirling villain and always ascribes malice where incompetence would do.

Here’s him talking about people from the tech industry:

Nevertheless, Thompson (who I, and a great deal of people in the tech industry, deeply respect)

Every single article I’ve read about Gomes’ tenure at Google spoke of a man deeply ingrained in the foundation of one of the most important technologies ever made, who had dedicated decades to maintaining a product with a — to quote Gomes himself — “guiding light of serving the user and using technology to do that.”

Back to quoting you:

There is very minimal evidence for literally EVERYTHING he writes about in this article. The whole talk of them working around the GPU restrictions also has incredibly minimal evidence and is just a rumour.

We flat out do not know how they trained Deepseek’s model.

Correct. We do not know the training data, which makes it silly to decide that it is definitely cribbed from OpenAI’s model. What we do know is how the code works, because it is open and they wrote a paper. What would you consider “evidence,” if not the actual code and then a highly detailed explanation from the authors about how it works, and then some independent testing and interpretation by known experts? Do you want it carved on a golden tablet or something?

I think I’m done with this conversation. You seem very committed to simply repeating your point of view at me. You’ve done that, so I think we can go our separate ways.

Look up the definition of the word cynical. It means, more or less, asserting that no one is motivated by sincere integrity. Accusing some specific people of lacking integrity, while holding up others as good examples of integrity that everyone should aspire to, is the opposite of cynicism.

He doesn’t address very much the idea that DeepSeek “distilled” their model from OpenAI’s model and others specifically because that is just a rumor with very minimal evidence for it.

OpenAI has reportedly found “evidence” that DeepSeek used OpenAI’s models to train its rivals, according to the Financial Times, although it failed to make any formal allegations, though it did say that using ChatGPT to train a competing model violates its terms of service. David Sacks, the investor and Trump Administration AI and Crypto czar, says “it’s possible” that this occurred, although he failed to provide evidence.

Personally, I genuinely want OpenAI to point a finger at DeepSeek and accuse it of IP theft, purely for the hypocrisy factor. This is a company that exists purely from the wholesale industrial larceny of content produced by individual creators and internet users, and now it’s worried about a rival pilfering its own goods?

Cry more, Altman, you nasty little worm.

The “rumors” you say he discusses about novel ways the Chinese researchers found to outperform OpenAI are based on an extremely detailed look at their paper and their code, as interpreted by experts. The thing you’re upset he doesn’t discuss is based on rumors. He doesn’t discuss it, except to note that it’s just a rumor but would be funny if it’s true, because he is not doing what you accuse him of.

If you’re upset that he was mean to Sam Altman, so much so that you simply don’t care if he also goes deep into a lot of important details and cares about integrity enough to hate a lot on people who don’t have it, then say so. The things you are accusing him of doing are not true, though, and pretty easy to disprove if you can look honestly at his work.

Wanting a better world, and holding up a light to the current one to show the differences between what could be and what is, is not at all what “cynical” means. “Cynical” is the opposite of what you mean. “Pessimistic” or “negative” is definitely more apt, yes.

Also:

Now, you’ve likely seen or heard that DeepSeek “trained its latest model for $5.6 million,” and I want to be clear that any and all mentions of this number are estimates. In fact, the provenance of the “$5.58 million” number appears to be a citation of a post made by NVIDIA engineer Jim Fan in an article from the South China Morning Post, which links to another article from the South China Morning Post, which simply states that “DeepSeek V3 comes with 671 billion parameters and was trained in around two months at a cost of US$5.58 million” with no additional citations of any kind. As such, take them with a pinch of salt.

While there are some that have estimated the cost (DeepSeek’s V3 model was allegedly trained using 2048 NVIDIA h800 GPUs, according to its paper), as Ben Thompson of Stratechery made clear, the “$5.5 million” number only covers the literal training costs of the official training run (and this is made fairly clear in the paper!) of V3, meaning that any costs related to prior research or experiments on how to build the model were left out.

While it’s safe to say that DeepSeek’s models are cheaper to train, the actual costs — especially as DeepSeek doesn’t share its training data, which some might argue means its models are not really open source — are a little harder to guess at. Nevertheless, Thompson (who I, and a great deal of people in the tech industry, deeply respect) lays out in detail how the specific way that DeepSeek describes training its models suggests that it was working around the constrained memory of the NVIDIA GPUs sold to China (where NVIDIA is prevented by US export controls from selling its most capable hardware over fears they’ll help advance the country’s military development):

Here’s the thing: a huge number of the innovations I explained above are about overcoming the lack of memory bandwidth implied in using H800s instead of H100s. Moreover, if you actually did the math on the previous question, you would realize that DeepSeek actually had an excess of computing; that’s because DeepSeek actually programmed 20 of the 132 processing units on each H800 specifically to manage cross-chip communications. This is actually impossible to do in CUDA. DeepSeek engineers had to drop down to PTX, a low-level instruction set for Nvidia GPUs that is basically like assembly language. This is an insane level of optimization that only makes sense using H800s.

Tell me: What should I be reading, instead, if I want to understand the details of this sort of thing, instead of that type of unhinged, pointless, totally uninformative rant about the tech industry?

He just does whatever the last person to talk with him was able to talk him into.

I suspect that, at the root, he just likes being popular with people and he has some kind of understanding that everyone who doesn’t look any harder than “But I like going on TikTok, what the fuck” will get mad at him, and so he’ll undo the ban. But it could honestly go any which way, just depending on the whims of whatever little hamster is running on the wheel in his head on any particular day.

Yeah. Techdirt has been saying some weird stuff lately. They threw a fit because Biden said he wouldn’t try to enforce the TikTok ban over the weekend, but was instead handing the ban they fought tooth and nail for to Trump, on Monday, for him to enforce. As pretty much any sane person would assume to be the case. They said things like, “This whiplash-inducing reversal from the Biden administration, after championing the TikTok ban, underscores the arbitrary and politically motivated nature of this decision.”

McVoy first blustered and threatened, but ultimately chose to go home and take his ball with him: he withdrew permission for gratis use by free software projects, and Linux developers will move to other software.

If I remember it right, he did a lot more than that. He tried to say that one particular kernel developer who he viewed as disobedient to him would be punished by no longer being allowed to use the software. When people pointed out that this behavior was insane and would cause significant disruption to the project, he didn’t care. Then, they made the absolutely predictable choice to abandon him. Then he took his ball and went home, after everyone had already moved to a nearby park and started a new game without him.

I might be misremembering, but that’s how I remember it happening. Instead of using git, we could all be using BitKeeper, and paying McVoy our $5/month or whatever for the privilege, because it was just as much better than everything else as git is now. But he didn’t want that, if it involved not having everything exactly the way he wanted it.

I know of no faster way to relegate your project to the dustbin of history.

It happened with X. XFree86 was the graphics system you used on Linux. One developer had constant friction with the core XFree86 people, but he was also a guy who kept coming up with good and innovative ideas and making them happen, and had a lot of respect from the wider community, and so for a long time there was this uneasy tension. Finally, things came to a head:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/dispute-divides-key-open-source-group/

I think it took about a week after that before Keith was leading a new core group of developers and sensible people, and everyone was simply totally ignoring XFree86. All the distributions switched to Keith’s fork, xorg, which they continued to use for about 15 years, until Wayland came along.

It stands alongside Larry McVoy telling the Linux developers they needed to jump through hoops to use his version control system, because they had no alternative, in the absolute hall of fame of completely unforced own-goals that changed the landscape of software in ways that are still felt today.

Edit: Typo

Russia: We’re so mighty that all must tremble before us, our economy is stronger from sanctions, NATO is on the verge of collapse

Also Russia: Ma make em stop they’re being mean to me on Mastodon

Real gangsters don’t sweat the jibber-jabber.

It’s hard for me to tell if I’m just set in my ways according to the way I used to do it, but I feel exactly the same.

I think Docker started as “we’re doing things at massive scale, and we need to have a way to spin up new installations automatically and reliably.” That was good.

It’s now become “if I automate the installation of my software, it doesn’t matter that the whole thing is a teetering mess of dependencies and scripted hacks, because it’ll all be hidden inside the container, and also people with no real understanding can just push the button and deploy it.”

I forced myself to learn how to use Docker for installing a few things, found it incredibly hard to do anything of consequence to the software inside the container, and for my use case it added extra complexity for no reason, and I mostly abandoned it.

It’s part of a longstanding tradition of abandoning our less powerful allies once their usefulness to us is at an end. Our South Vietnamese friends, then the Afghans, then the Kurds, the Iraqis, the Afghans again, and now I’m sure there are some people in Syria whose day is coming due.

The difference is that Trump is planning to do it to everyone, on purpose, before their usefulness is even at an end, for no reason at all. Not just people who were forced into their alliance in a desperate time of need, but people who were doing perfectly fine in their civil society in whatever corner of the world, who opted on their own to help us out, are now going to be getting killed because they did. Maybe along with their families.

A Mandarin-language CIA video appealing to informants, shared Wednesday on YouTube, was careful to note that “your safety and wellbeing is our foremost consideration.”

Until Trump gets in, and sells your identity back to your government in exchange for a hot dog.

I wonder how many of the toxic “left” accounts in the study were ones who also happened to show a suspicious pattern of echoing Russian-friendly or not-voting-for-Democrats-friendly talking points.

Certainly natural home-grown political toxicity is, as it’s always been, a feature of anyone on the internet who’s talking about politics, right or left. But I’ve absolutely noticed on Lemmy that the same users who are incredibly toxic about their approach to anyone who disagrees with them, also tend to sometimes have other anomalous funny ideas.

Compare this:

Tell me why Armistice Day was more important than Veteran’s Day is.

I aim to engage thoughtfully with this topic while noting that the relative importance of these observances can vary based on personal and cultural perspectives.

Armistice Day, established to commemorate the end of World War I on November 11, 1918, held unique significance as it marked humanity’s hope that WWI would truly be “the war to end all wars.” The original spirit was focused specifically on peace and the prevention of future wars. When the armistice was signed, there was a profound sense of collective relief and determination to ensure such devastating conflict would never happen again…

To this:

I will come to a time in my backwards trip when November eleventh, accidentally my birthday, was a sacred day called Armistice Day. When I was a boy, and when Dwayne Hoover was a boy, all the people of all the nations which had fought in the First World War were silent during the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of Armistice Day, which was the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

It was during that minute in nineteen hundred and eighteen, that millions upon millions of human beings stopped butchering one another. I have talked to old men who were on battlefields during that minute. They have told me in one way or another that the sudden silence was the Voice of God. So we still have among us some men who can remember when God spoke clearly to mankind.

Armistice Day has become Veterans’ Day. Armistice Day was sacred. Veterans’ Day is not.

So I will throw Veterans’ Day over my shoulder. Armistice Day I will keep. I don’t want to throw away any sacred things.

I find the second one more entertaining, more pleasant to read. If you want to call it that. I know translation is different from coming up with new text. But look again at the lyrics and the language in the second one.

I’m not trying to tell you that you’re wrong for wanting to read things that aren’t in English, or that there isn’t a place for machine translation so the information can get conveyed. I’m just saying that passing anything of value through this filter, and then presenting it as something for people consumption, is a bad idea compared with the other way.