When I started angel investing in the late 1990s, a tech investment included a significant technology risk, with the potential upside being groundbreaking innovation. Being an investor at this time meant taking a considerable technology risk and betting on actual tech, such as nanotech, semiconductors or biotech.

E-commerce, albeit hyped and interesting, was not considered tech. It was “Business 2.0”, plain and straightforward, hype included.

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    All companies are tech companies, those that aren’t will be replaced by those that are. It’s been a common theme for a decade. I don’t really care that some venture capitalists lost their easy button to decide where to throw money for massive returns. Investing is supposed to require diligence.

  • demesisx@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I read four words then was hit with this.

    You’ve just hit the article limit with your free Sifted account.

    Ok, ok. If you insist. I won’t read your article.

          • joshchandra@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            2 days ago

            Doing so would break nearly all Internet access. Do you really run a whitelist rather than a blacklist? Is it not tedious to add hundreds of domains to one rather than a few to the other?

            • 𝔗𝔢𝔯 𝔐𝔞𝔵𝔦𝔪𝔞@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              I do ! I use NoScript in Firefox, and I allow scripts selectively when they’re needed. You’d be surprised how many websites just work with everything off !

              This may differ depending on your usage, though. I don’t really use in-browser apps if at all possible, and I don’t use conventional social media aside from YouTube and Reddit (PeerTube and Lemmy are better but there’s still too much info / people on the corporate versions to fully switch over)

            • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              2 days ago

              I actually do this. With uBlock Origin you can set to default block any JS (or just 3rd party JS) and then whitelist by domains. Then you can lock in per-site settings.

              • joshchandra@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                Well, I recently left uBO for AdNauseam because it actively attacks advertisers by clicking every link (thereby leading to garbage data that messes up their stats), but it can’t operate with uBO simultaneously. I’ll see what I can do to copy this approach since I can’t seem to find a whitelist-only-JS feature in it…

            • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Do you really run a whitelist rather than a blacklist?

              That’s a weird question. That ‘yes’ seems as easy as “do you wear your seat belt? Every TIME?!?”

              Is it not tedious to add hundreds of domains to one rather than a few to the other?

              After about a dozen you’re kinda set. I will enable one-offs in a private window, usually for shit news sites or the very occasional referral farm, and the exceptions are all reverted when I close the tab.

            • reksas@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              I would feel like wading through sewer bare footed if I had all javascript enabled by default

              • joshchandra@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 hours ago

                omg, I’m using NoScript now and my eyes have been opened; I can’t ever go back!! Thanks for the analogy; that was a much-needed, jolting wake-up call.

                • reksas@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  I also use ublock origin on top of it, that way its a little safer to test which sites to allow. Anything blocked on ublock origin is definitely something you dont need to run the website and if it is then its likely not worth using that website anyway.

            • Telorand@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              I run a whitelist. I’d rather be more private than know what to blacklist (and there’s often a lot of extra JavaScript that gets called, mostly for tracking).

              It’s not that tedious. You just add as you use the internet. Refresh the page when you’ve whitelisted.

              • joshchandra@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                there’s often a lot of extra JavaScript that gets called, mostly for tracking

                Do you mean that your tool (whatever you use) can selectively block some JS while admitting others on one website?

                • Telorand@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Yes! NoScript is my tool of choice.

                  It can sometimes be annoying to have to whitelist things, but after seeing that when I allow the main domain (and maybe their CDN) through the filter, and ten more domains will try to do whatever it is they do—Google Tags and Analytics, some data broker, some cookie tracker, etc.—I’m willing to take that extra step just to keep all these companies from snarfing up my data.

                  A little annoyance is a small price to pay, in my mind.

      • joshchandra@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s crazy that you’re being downvoted. I guess they avoid The Atlantic, etc. as well, despite the helpful info in such articles.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 days ago

    Remember WeWork? It’s the ultimate example of putting tech-coloured lipstick on a pig.

    Daaaaaaamn

  • kokope11i@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    To summarize, “I have a POV that almost no one else has. Why is everyone not naming things the way I see them.”

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      To summarize, “I have a POV that almost no one else has. Why is everyone not naming things the way I see them.”

      Yes, pinocchio, your company is a real tech company because they use tech tools.

      (sorry, it’s just a tech leveraging company, the same way my bus driver leverages the bus but does not fix or build it. My bus driver is not a bus; just the driver)

    • REDACTED@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      Seriously. Your opinions and hate aside, LLM, deep learning and reasoning models are amongst one of the most advanced software technologies available to consumers.

      This post is lame

      • JayleneSlide@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        No, no they’re not. These are just repackaged and scaled-up neural nets. Anyone remember those? The concept and good chunks of the math are over 200 years old. Hell, there was two-layer neural net software in the early 90s that ran on my x386. Specifically, Neural Network PC Tools by Russell Eberhart. The DIY implementation of OCR in that book is a great example of roll-your-own neural net. What we have today, much like most modern technology, is just lots MORE of the same. Back in the DOS days, there was even an ML application that would offer contextual suggestions for mistyped command line entries.

        Typical of Silicon Valley, they are trying to rent out old garbage and use it to replace workers and creatives.

        • REDACTED@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          23 hours ago

          I genuinely can’t tell if you’re being for real. By the same logic, raytracing is ancient tech that should be abandoned.

          The stuff we had when people thought Hitler is still alive on some Island and stuff we have now is barely comparable, even thought yes, they use a similar underlying technology.

          Since I never had the chance to try it out myself, how was your neural network and LLMs reasoning back in the day? Imo that’s the most impressive part, not that it can write.

          • JayleneSlide@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 minutes ago

            By the same logic, raytracing is ancient tech that should be abandoned.

            Nice straw man argument you have there.

            I’ll restate, since my point didn’t seem to come across. All of the “AI” garbage that is getting jammed into everything is merely scaled up from what has been before. Scaling up is not advancement. A possible analogy would be automobiles in the late 60s and 90s: Just put in more cubic inches and bigger chassis! More power from more displacement does not mean more advanced. Continuing that analogy, 2.0L engines cranking out 400ft-lb and 500HP while delivering 28MPG average is advanced engineering. Right now, the software and hardware running LLMs are just MOAR cubic inches. We haven’t come up with more advanced data structures.

            These types of solutions can have a place and can produce something adjacent to the desired results. We make great use of expert systems constantly within narrow domains. Camera autofocus systems leap to mind. When “fuzzy logic” autofocus was introduced, it was a boon to photography. Another example of narrow-ish domain ML software is medical decision support software, which I developed in a previous job in the early 2000s. There was nothing advanced about most of it; the data structures used were developed in the 50s by a medical doctor from Columbia University (Larry Weed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Weed). The advanced part was the computer language he also developed for quantifying medical knowledge. Any computer with enough storage, RAM, and the hardware ability to quickly traverse the data structures can be made to appear advanced when fed with enough collated data, i.e. turning data into information.

            Since I never had the chance to try it out myself, how was your neural network and LLMs reasoning back in the day? Imo that’s the most impressive part, not that it can write.

            It was slick for the time. It obviously wasn’t an LLM per se, but both were a form of LM. The OCR and auto-suggest for DOS were pretty shit-hot for x386. The two together inspried one of my huge projects in engineering school: a whole-book scanner* that removed page curl and gutter shadow, and then generated a text-under-image PDF. By training the software on a large body of varied physical books and retentively combing over the OCR output and retraining, the results approached what one would see in the modern suite that now comes with your scanner. I only achieved my results because I had unfettered use of a quad Xeon beast in the college library where I worked. That software drove the early digitization processes for this (which I also built): http://digitallib.oit.edu/digital/collection/kwl/search

            *in contrast to most book scanning at the time, which required the book to be cut apart and the pages fed into an automatically fed scanner; lots of books couldn’t be damaged like that.

            Edit: a word

  • OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    This doesn’t change the fact that SaaS is lucrative because unlike producing hardware, you can add users/subscribers without paying to produce additional units.

    • andallthat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      By that measure shouldn’t Disney be considered a Tech company too? Or I guess banks and insurance companies.

      I hadn’t thought of it that way, but maybe the article (at least the small part I can read with no paywall) is on to something, Companies that sell access to technology or rely on technology to sell something else (he does give the example of e-commerce) should not be “Tech” companies.

      The part I didn’t get to is where the author draws the line to tell what companies ARE Tech. I guess OpenAI or Google would qualify. They sell services but they are services they invented and made, with considerable researxh and investment. But what about Amazon or Netflix?

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        By that measure shouldn’t Disney be considered a Tech company too? Or I guess banks and insurance companies.

        Yeah, in the same way that every company that uses a phone is a phone company.

      • OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m on board with it if people want to change the terminology around these things, but it seems like the core of what the author is discussing is the valuation of these companies and potential bubbles.

        I think it makes sense that Disney and Amazon and Netflix who are able to make money through more of a SaaS-like model would have a higher valuation than a car company that has to produce a new car for every unit sold. Maybe there’s a recent example of an over-valued car company we can think of?

        Consider that an auto mechanic and a software engineer can have a similar problem-solving skill set, and could both be very intelligent. Why then does an auto mechanic make so much less money? It’s partly because of the economies of scale involved with software. The owner of the software company can sell the software to thousands of clients without having to pay the software engineer to build the software thousands of times. The owner of the auto shop still has to pay the mechanic to perform every job every time and get paid for it.

        So while I agree that Disney and Netflix maybe aren’t “Tech” companies, it seems to me the real problem the author is grappling with is whether they should be valued similar to tech companies. So I guess the question becomes, are “tech” companies highly valued because they are expected to make some huge technological leap that shakes up industries, or is it because of the economies of scale inherent in the SaaS-like business model?

        • andallthat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          You make a great point. But just to stay on the example of cars: besides the innovation on EVs, there’s this horrible tendency to consider cars as tablets on wheels, both in the sense that you can forget about repairing them by yourself and in the sense that they are now increasingly becoming low-margin hardware to run higher margin subscription services. If anything warrants high valuation for a car company it would arguably be the innovation on EVs, rather than the SaaS model.

          I hope the idea of Car Software As a Service dies before becoming too widespread. But if it doesn’t, maybe car companies wouldn’t become “Tech” companies, just more shitty subscription vendors. And their stock should be valued as such, not for the largely unwanted “Tech innovation”.

          • OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            I agree. I’d like to see some separation between the car manufacturer and the software. Any computers in the car should support whatever operating system you want to put on it. Things like controlling the car’s functions would just be device drivers. If the car company also wants to get into the SaaS business, fine, but you shouldn’t be required to pay for that software to operate the vehicle.