The price list is here: https://docs.hetzner.com/de/general/infrastructure-and-avail...

The German page of the news article shows the old and new prices. The CPX and CCX lines are up 120%

A challenge they forgot to mention is EU‘s very own new Product Lianility Directive.

Although the Directive exempts free and open-source software (OSS) from strict product liability, it does so only if the software is developed or provided outside the course of a commercial activity.

As soon as a company integrates OSS into its own commercial product or uses it for economic purposes, the company becomes liable for any potential defects in the open-source component.

Looks Like fun for freelancers and companies who get Clients thanks to their Open Source projects, for example.

Company sells product for profit - they are liable for the product and all its subcomponents - there is nothing unfair about this - it doesn't matter if you found the components in a hole in the ground or on github - if you are selling a product based off it, you are liable.

For freelancers / oss companies - you can still sell services such as consulting or support - without selling your oss project - then its a service - not a product.

Does this mean that you think a company should not be held liable for defects caused in a product they ship, if the defect is caused by an open source component?

Why not?

This Spec Driven Development Short course on DeepLearning by Paul Everitt is a nice 2-Hour walkthrough: https://www.deeplearning.ai/courses/spec-driven-development-...

Enterprise accounts pay per token.

Of all the companies I've done work for over the last couple of years, only one have used an enterprise account.

A failure mode I see more, recently is that it gives superficially correct answers but after digging deeper, I get answers that contradict the superficial answers - really an important thing to be aware of, in my point of view, and it often leaves me wondering if I dug deep enough.

Interesting that nobody mentioned SAR in this thread, yet.

SAR benefits from space compute by reducing the strain on downlinks (pre-process, detect in space). A large-ish (think 6k sat) constellation of much bigger sats (2-2,5 ton) than current Starlink sats can run inference on board, distribute load to nearby sats, and enable full round-the-clock surveillance of the whole world.

The nominal compute capacity is in ballpark range of a modern AI data center, but it's only about 20% used on average due to duty cycles. An indestructible, global eye.

The big Starship launch vehicle is perfect platform to bring them into orbit, can maybe bring 40 at a time into orbit, so 150 launches for 6k. Maybe even fewer sats are needed, depends mostly on electrical efficiency of the components.

For a start, invert - ask about the exact opposite in a separate session.

I’ll second this. Great way to recalibrate yourself, once you see it confidently assert the exact opposite statement.

… and “That’s not x. That’s y.” Certain LLMs wield powerful stylistic devices all the time to a point where they become irrelevant and cringe.

I see it as a good sign that we can learn to recognize the pattern and adapt but there are probably more subtle things we don’t see.

I have run the piece through an impromptu stylistic device detector. It found 15 different, each used multiple times and likened the writing style as a mix of Ezra Klein, Hannah Arendt, Zeynep Tufekci, George Orwell (“especially in the contrastive clarity”).

A) I certainly don’t see enough of the tells.

B) what happens to our language if everything is written as if it’s competing for a Pulitzer’s Price?

Wow. The “That’s not x. That’s y. / You’re not x. you’re y.” rhetoric is already cringe in other contexts. This brings it on a whole new level.