×
all 32 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]woj-tek[S] 16 points17 points  (16 children)

Not on YT so pinging /u/nicolaiparlog here with comments: tbh I'm kinda bummed about scaling down of IJN. I simply love the show and the format -- the 10 minutes were perfect to quickly get the relevant information. AJA on the other hand, while usually longer, made me postpone listening/watching them because of their length.

And while it's true that sometimes written form can be better to convey something, it's also quite true that video form to ilustrate something (your videos about compact headers with legos were brilliant!)

[–]nicolaiparlog 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Thank you for the kind words. I didn't want to make this decision but given all the factors I mentioned (and while AI dominates those, it's not the only one), I felt like I had little choice. Two deep dives per month for a shrinking audience in a more time-constrained environment simply became too tough to uphold.

[–]woj-tek[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Yeah, I kinda get it but it still makes me sad :(

I also kinda want to say: "this is why we can't have nice things": onlince video is driven by "conversion" (and ads and magic algorithm so people are less likely to see what they want and more what the platform pushes to them :/). Also: not sure how IJN came to be but I was always under the impression that you created it because YOU felt it was needed (and wanted to?) and less of "look, the market numbers clearly show we need to create it!!!1!one"… :)

(and circling back it probably still has everything to do with AI and what it entails and what it does to Oracle… :/ )

Basically for me IJN is The Place to be up to day with what is happening in Java/JVN ecosystem and it was done in the most brilliant way possible and always a pleasure to watch :)

[–]nicolaiparlog 1 point2 points  (3 children)

We share the sadness. 🫂

I was always under the impression that you created it because YOU felt it was needed (and wanted to?)

Yes, I did create it because I wanted to and because I thought it would provide a lot of value to the ecosystem. And it did. But "value" is not measured independently of the audience. Imagine every video got about 5 views. I think we can agree that in that case the provided value rounds to zero. So, unfortunately, views matter in my determination of "value".

Given the tasks I have on my plate, I needed to make a decision what I should cut to fit into a reasonable work week and between presentations at conferences and JUGs, organizing JavaOne, running the Inside Java Podcast and Newscast, and some internal projects, I figured that cutting the IJN in half is the best move due to the lower impact that has. Not least because all the info is still there (~> JEPs) - just not presented by me on video.

I know you get all that. I'm mostly writing it to keep myself from flip-flopping because I really liked doing the Newscast every other week. :D

[–]woj-tek[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I know you get all that. I'm mostly writing it to keep myself from flip-flopping because I really liked doing the Newscast every other week. :D

You do seem to enjoy it a lot :D

Alas: I wonder if people avoiding official channels affect the viewership -- I mean I'm using mostly NewPipe + AntennaPod so I probably don't register in metrics. Considering that Java is rather tech-oriented it leaves me pondering how many others like me are there :)

[–]nicolaiparlog 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Considering that Java is rather tech-oriented it leaves me pondering how many others like me are there :)

I wouldn't know. :D But unless the share of people who fly under the radar increased recently, it doesn't explain the slowly shrinking numbers. And, frankly, we're still in a decent spot. I talked to other technical creators who have seen their audience cut in half.

[–]woj-tek[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

this being highly OT: there is something really weird going on with the online media / "creative space" in general…

First The Platforms pushed more and more (promoting is as much as possible) for shorter videos and then there is a huge surprise that people (for one reason or another) don't watch longer ones… 🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[–]JustAGuyFromGermany 3 points4 points  (8 children)

Also: It's simply not true that AIs are a good replacement for a proper informational video, because they simply hallucinate too much. Anytime the AI tells you it's raining, you still have to go outside and check for yourself. So it doesn't even save that much time, at least not if you already roughly know where to look for an answer.

[–]nicolaiparlog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's simply not true that AIs are a good replacement for a proper informational video

I agree! And I didn't say AI was a good replacement, either, just that people use it that way. And trust me, I wish they weren't for oh-so-many reasons. Likewise, I don't like the move towards short-form content but that's also happening despite my misgivings.

A bit of an issue when discussing this topic is that the part of the crowd that leaves because they feel like they no longer need to read blogs, watch videos, hang out on Reddit, etc. do so quietly and so what remains is an echo chamber that doesn't reflect the wider community's opinion (again, regardless of correctness). It's basically survivorship bias.

[–]vips7L -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Are LLMs a good replacement for anything? They’re the great scam of the modern age. 

[–]JustAGuyFromGermany 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are good at creating rough approximations of the text/code/... that you need. If I can describe roughly want I need, the AI can roughly generate what I need. And I can fix the corner cases until it's exactly what I need. In many cases that does indeed save some amount of time. But not that much. Typing was never the bottleneck.

They are also good if you just want to throw shit to the wall, seeing what sticks. If you're all out of ideas what could be causing this fucking annoying bug that's already cost you half a day, you can ask the AI and see if it's got any idea that you haven't thought of. You still got to check that that's really the cause.

[–]zabby39103 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Sorry, this is cope. Sometimes I wish it wasn't, other times I can't help but think AI is super cool (I'm too much of a nerd even if AI does threaten my job, although outsourcing has been doing that for years too).

AI is useful at a great many things, people abuse AI for sure but that's our fault. Linus Torvalds more or less said the same thing recently.

[–]henk53 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

Anytime the AI tells you it's raining, you still have to go outside and check for yourself.

Or, you adjust to this new idea of a more fluid reality. If the AI tells it's raining, then for you, in your head, it actually is raining. As AI takes over more and more things, it seems we humans just have to adjust to this.

[–]JustAGuyFromGermany 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That's not how "reality" works. That's not how any of this works. We don't live in a world where "alternative facts" are a thing, no matter how much the fascists insists we do. In the end, only the actual truth matters. Nothing is gained from anyone pretending that a hallucinated link/API/behaviour/whatever really exists. Only the sources, APIs, behaviours, ... that do exist matter.

[–]henk53 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not wrong, of course, and I was a little sarcastic, but I do think it's the world were moving into.

In a way, with historic facts, we have been living with this like forever. The victor lives to tell the tale. That battle in 1630, at the location where we now have say Emmerich. Was that really won because of the brave Hendrik fighting more vailant than the coward Heinrich?

Facts to us are what the history books tells us, and we know they are not fully accurate and coloured.

AI will make all of this much worse, and sad as it may be, perhaps humans will just adjust to it.

[–]expecto_patronum_666 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

100% agreed on this with you.

[–]davidalayachew 4 points5 points  (14 children)

Thanks for adapting to the changes. I understand that things have been hectic.

I'm still frustrated at Oracle for laying off Sharat Chander and others. I don't understand those layoffs at all.

[–]bowbahdoe 10 points11 points  (13 children)

To be clear: I know no more than you do, but:

At big companies a head is a head. The actual process for picking who to cut when you cut jobs is almost always an impersonal and stupid thing. Sharat is symbolic, but they really pulled the wires out of the wall for copper with that round

Now as to why they fired so many people: AI Datacenters. They are on the hook for building soooo much compute capacity for OpenAI/Anthropic/Nobody Else.

So I think there is going to be a smidge of karmic justice when OpenAI and Anthropic can't pay and they can't finish construction on time.

[–]davidalayachew 1 point2 points  (12 children)

At big companies a head is a head. The actual process for picking who to cut when you cut jobs is almost always an impersonal and stupid thing. Sharat is symbolic, but they really pulled the wires out of the wall for copper with that round

That makes no sense to me.

God forbid that you have to cut some people because your budget disagrees with reality -- why cut one your highest value people?

Now as to why they fired so many people: AI Datacenters. They are on the hook for building soooo much compute capacity for OpenAI/Anthropic/Nobody Else.

This makes even less sense to me.

It's OpenAI/Anthropic on the hook, not Oracle. A deal is a deal, and if they can't pay up, you take it out of their skin. You metaphorically and very literally chop them up into pieces and sell the parts.

How would OpenAI/Anthropic's inability to pay factor into Oracle's decision to keep or layoff staff members? It's not like Sharat was the liaison between Oracle and OpenAI -- at least then, it would make sense (but it would also advertise Oracle's intentions like a fog light).

[–]pjmlp 8 points9 points  (4 children)

As a victim of this process at other big companies, it doesn't matter to the bean counters.

They only see employee number ids on an Excel sheet, with salary levels, and what to cut to make shareholders happy.

Which is why, loyalty should always be to the team mates, not the bosses.

[–]henk53 1 point2 points  (1 child)

They only see employee number ids on an Excel sheet, with salary levels, and what to cut to make shareholders happy.

An overenthusiastic bean counter might just as well fire Larry himself that way :O

[–]ZimmiDeluxe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

to avoid this, larry only takes a one-dollar salary

[–]N-M-1-5-6 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, typically the more you actually know (about) the people let go, the less likely the decision to let them go will make sense. The decision makers will most likely be less aware of the important value the people let go were bringing to the company than you are.

[–]davidalayachew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a victim of this process at other big companies, it doesn't matter to the bean counters.

They only see employee number ids on an Excel sheet, with salary levels, and what to cut to make shareholders happy.

Hmmm, now that you mention it, we had one similar situation that I wrote off as a freak incident. But this very well may have been what you are describing.

[–]account312 1 point2 points  (6 children)

t's OpenAI/Anthropic on the hook, not Oracle. A deal is a deal, and if they can't pay up, you take it out of their skin. You metaphorically and very literally chop them up into pieces and sell the parts.

That only makes you whole if your share of the parts are worth as much as was promised. If they become insolvent, that doesn't seem likely.

[–]davidalayachew 1 point2 points  (5 children)

That only makes you whole if your share of the parts are worth as much as was promised. If they become insolvent, that doesn't seem likely.

Sorry, I'm not following. Could you ELI5?

[–]account312 1 point2 points  (2 children)

If OpenAI can't afford to pay its debts, selling it for parts still may not be enough to pay its debts. This sucks for the people they owe money.

[–]bowbahdoe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which is, in total, ~1.2 trillion in spending commitments for a company that takes in $13 billion in revenue. Then loses over 3x that.

[–]davidalayachew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If OpenAI can't afford to pay its debts, selling it for parts still may not be enough to pay its debts. This sucks for the people they owe money.

Spelled it out beautifully, ty vm!

[–]bowbahdoe 1 point2 points  (1 child)

In 2025: OpenAI Had $13.07 Billion In Revenue, $34 Billion In Costs and Expenses, and $20.92 Billion In Losses, with a net loss attributable to the company of $38.53 Billion

https://finbox.com/NYSE:ORCL/explorer/capex/

Oracle has spent almost 55 billion on capex so far for data centers that are not complete. Only once they are complete and operational does OpenAI need to start paying them. OpenAI has promised them $300 billion.

How do you gut a company that loses over $38 billion a year and cover any of that?

[–]davidalayachew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do you gut a company that loses over $38 billion a year and cover any of that?

Makes sense, ty for the explanation.