The CEO is paid $193M, this has nothing to do with any profit reddit makes.
Which, they have never made a profit, "Now, Reddit — which is not yet profitable"......"Reddit reported a net loss of $90.8 million in 2023, a narrower loss than the $158.6 million loss it netted in 2022." https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/23/tech/reddit-ipo-filing-busine...
Pretty wild that a CEO can make that sort of money while running an unprofitable business. I can't imagine thinking so much of myself that I would value myself at 100s of millions. I wonder if there's some sort of pathology behind it.
Ok, but when you look at the forecast, and see an expected loss of 90 million, maybe the CEO should say, perhaps if I was paid 90 million less then we will be in profit, and I would still have enough money to retire in excessive luxury.
Clearly there's a group of people of people who are selfish and think so highly of themselves that this sort of logic will never make sense to them. Any company or executive that says they care about the workers, customers, or cause and is making 8+ figures is lying whether they realize it or not. I realize some people will make the argument that the comp needs to be so high to attract top talent. But there's a pool of talented people who would do it for less. Plenty of non-profits or mission-driven companies have lower paided executives.
Doesn't sound like the CEOs problem; he isn't there to make personal sacrifices to make the company profitable and I don't think anyone would pretend he is. If anyone should be making that observation it is whoever signs off on his compensation.
Although the compensation package won't cash so the situation isn't quite that simple.
It's baffling how shareholders are so tolerant of a CEO looting the company for substantial fractions of its total value annually. But it's very widespread.
It can only be viewed as a sacrifice if you believe he legitimately deserves that much money. That money could be used to increase employee comp instead of shareholder value. That's a lot of money for running an unprofitable business. I wish I was so delusional that I thought I deserved 100s of millions for running an unprofitable company.
Revenue $804m (!), expenses $944m (!). But I'm having trouble working out which of the expenses breakdown entries has the board salary in. And if it's compensation in stock, does that have to be expensed?
Sure, but there's a sort of nominal expectation that post salaries, especially salaries of that magnitude an entity has some profit. The obvious exception being they had an unprofitable year but have a gigantic pile of money sat in a bank somewhere.
> $193M compensation to lead a business to unprofitability is a problem. Period.
The compensation did not lead to unprofitability—it contributed to it. And we have no evidence by which to claim it would have been worse under less-paid management. (Well, with Reddit, we might.)
I’m not defending the compensation per se. But arguing everyone at any profitable entity should be paid less until the venture is profitable, irrespective of any other facts, is silly. Particularly when it comes to non-cash compensation.
It says in the article that once Avast was exposed they moved the Spyware from the toolbar to the main program and claimed everything is ok now, so in this case it's fool me thrice...
Trying to get off the hook on a technicality isn't going to work. Lots of people use VPNs completely in the open without getting jailed, because they're not otherwise of interest, but if you are being targeted, nobody is going to care about your "sshing to aws" excuse. And ssh tunneling web traffic looks quite different from normal ssh usage anyways.
I assume the timing patterns and amounts of data would likely be distinct between SSH and web. "Normal" SSH usage would mostly consist of much lighter packets, such as user keystrokes and terminal screenfuls of text. Typing tiny commands and getting a few kilobytes of output. SSH file transfers happen occasionally, sometimes with a large bulk of data.
Active web browsing requires downloading a crapton of files with wildly different sizes and sporadic timings between them.
Add normal user interaction, API requests, ad cycles, long video streams that won't max out all bandwidth, all happening at once across multiple tabs. The client also sends much more data with each TLS handshake and all those HTTP headers.
This could probably be masked by deliberately filling idle periods with garbage data just to appear as a stable data stream both ways.
Forget using a real web browser over an SSH proxy. What using elinks on a remote host with ssh? I bet somebody using elinks across ssh is virtually indistinguishable from somebody using a text editor.
SSH encryption only hides the content, not how much is being sent and when. When your browser fires off a bunch of requests to load a webpage, the timing is different from running typical commands on a server and receiving the output.
> At least legally I can claim that I'm just sshing to my aws server and not be jailed for using vpn.
Your mistake is assuming that China has rule of law. If you're in China and you upset Xi enough, you get jailed/disappeared even if you technically didn't break any laws on the books.
Could be a use case for X-Windows with ssh -X [0]? (so your web browser is actually running outside the GFW, it's just the window updates that are coming over the SSH tunnel).
any ssh traffic that does not look like ssh traffic (few bytes send to server, some more bytes returned) gets either terminated or slowed down to a crawl
Does this mean that in addition of the classic fail2ban, geoip firewall, or forever super slow login banners, we could also have a honey pot sending a lot of data with a traffic pattern similar than web browsing ?
That makes it sound like ad companies are invading the websites of news companies who are resisting.
These news organizations want to have their cake and eat it too. They rely on these platforms for traffic. Now they also want to be paid for getting that traffic. That's not how this works.
Provided that the problem is suited to the strengths of an LLM at all. An example might be a small ai custom trained on documentation for libraries. You ask it a question like "how do I make the background move with parallax effect when you move the cursor". It's a little ambiguous, high-level concept, and probably not a single function.
Small ai: likely makes up a function or suggests a single function which isn't sufficient. Refuses to budge from its answer or apologies and gets confused
Large LLM: able to actually understand the question, combine several functions. If it doesn't work you can tell it why and it fixes it
Because there’s a world of difference between a reinforcement learning trained special purpose model and asking a general purpose large language model to have a go at something.
Because they do completely different things? They literally have nothing to do with each other. Why do planes fly better than ships if ChatGPT can't do math?
Why no? Chess notation is text. But the problem is that LLMs are not that good for problems which require evaluation of a search tree. Also leading chess engines such as lc0 are without search better than 90+x% of All humans
People should differentiate between introvert, knowledgeable, and intelligent. I most likely qualify for the first two but I wouldn't even begin to guess on how to know whether I'm in the third league.
