The problem I have with this is simple and has to do with the lack of separation of entities.
Automattic is a competitor with WPEngine.
Wordpress.com is a competitor with WPEngine.
Wordpress.org and the Wordpress Foundation IS NOT a competitor with WPEngine.
There is a dispute between Automattic and WPEngine. The resources of Wordpress.org and the Wordpress Foundation should not be leverage in this dispute.
The fact that those boundaries are crossed means that anyone who is in competition with Automattic might have any and all ecosystems that Matt has any control over leveraged against them if they upset Matt or Automattic in any way.
It is very poor taste and changes the perspective of the product. Instead of a professional entity who will engage professionally it is now a form of leverage that a single person could wield against anyone who crosses them.
To be clear these same exact actions can be taken against anyone who insults one individual. This look is embarrassing.
> The fact that those boundaries are crossed means that anyone who is in competition with Automattic might have any and all ecosystems that Matt has any control over leveraged against them if they upset Matt or Automattic in any way.
There was never a boundary in the first place if it's the same guy doing both things. WordPress has always had this veneer of "community-driven", which is what they hide behind when people get their sites exploited, but Automattic really holds all the keys here. Just because Matt replies with an `@wordpress.org` email vs. an `@wordpress.com` email doesn't mean he's a different person all of a sudden.
If that’s the case, I’d like to hear from Matt about this. I’ve known him for years, and I don’t think he is unaware of conflicts like these. In fact I’ve seen him be deeply thoughtful about complex problems in the past. He’s not perfect (who is?), but he really does try.
Given that he has been pretty reasonable about stuff like this in the past, I don’t find myself inclined to ascribe bad intent until I hear from him personally.
Seems like the kind of situation where only one person can answer.
> Given that he has been pretty reasonable about stuff like this in the past, I don’t find myself inclined to ascribe bad intent until I hear from him personally.
there is a level of actions that are so bad that intent doesnt actually matter anymore. i would say matt has crossed that line here.
ThePrimeagen just did an interview with him, the video is also available on youtube now too.
Not the best interview IMO since prime didn't have much time to prepare questions / topics, and so he is very much "firing from the hip" but you'll get to hear matt go into detail about this topic.
You could also draw parallels from Drupal's death spiral that kicked off when (at the behest of corporate clients) Aquia decided to pivot to "large core" architecture and tossed the bulk of the community overboard in the process.
> The problem I have with this is simple and has to do with the lack of separation of entities.
> Automattic is a competitor with WPEngine. Wordpress.com is a competitor with WPEngine. Wordpress.org and the Wordpress Foundation IS NOT a competitor with WPEngine.
> There is a dispute between Automattic and WPEngine. The resources of Wordpress.org and the Wordpress Foundation should not be leverage in this dispute.
> The fact that those boundaries are crossed means that anyone who is in competition with Automattic might have any and all ecosystems that Matt has any control over leveraged against them if they upset Matt or Automattic in any way.
Can an action like this put the WordPress Foundation's 501c(3) at risk?
And if so, how likely is it to actually become a legal problem?
Were it to go to trial, legal discovery would be fun. How many internal conversations were had about, “Those jerks at WPEngine are eating our lunch”. Rather than, “I am truly concerned about how the trademark is being confused by this one specific successful company. Whatever can we do?”
Civil discovery isn’t a public process. The parties don’t get to share what they discovered with the public, and sensitive information is frequently redacted before documents are provided to the opposing party.
> The parties don’t get to share what they discovered with the public,
Not directly, but they can enter it as evidence into the lawsuit, in which case it gets publicly released unless the other side can convince the judge to seal it. Absolutely parties try to get embarrassing information exposed to the media in this way. They only can do that if it is plausibly relevant to the subject matter of the lawsuit-but internal conversations in which executives are attacking the company suing them very likely are.
> in which case it gets publicly released unless the other side can convince the judge to seal it.
Motions to seal evidence are routinely granted by courts in civil matters. Parties can try to get embarrassing information entered into the public record, but they have to convince a judge, and that’s often an uphill battle. Courts don’t like to be used as a tool for private parties to air the others’ dirty laundry.
> The parties don’t get to share what they discovered with the public
Well certainly.
> and sensitive information is frequently redacted before documents are provided to the opposing party.
In this case that kind of sensitive information absolutely wouldn't be able to be redacted (successfully) because those conversations would be entirely germane.
I was more thinking that this would be government intervention regarding the non-profit status. Discovery would still be secret, but probably a smoking gun there that the organization is not independent of the commercial entity.
As far as I am aware, the WP.org”s (or is it the foundation?) actions are distasteful, but they are allowed to ban whomever they like.
WP Engine could file a complaint with the IRS about tax exempt status abuse. But that would be a heck of an escalation, and even more damaging to the WordPress ecosystem than Matt’s ridiculous actions so far.
But it wouldn’t have to be them. Any U.S. citizen can file such a complaint, even anonymously. That said, it would likely not be pursued by the IRS unless it was written based on detailed accurate knowledge of tax exempt regulations, and clear proof of abuse.
There is a standard, numbered IRS form for this exact purpose. Having once drafted a copy once, they do indeed require you to submit some kind of narrative and supporting documentation that there is some kind of impropriety in relation to their particular tax exempt status.
It’s not clear to me that WordPress.org has done that. I think it’s perfectly fair to ask WP Engine to pay WordPress.org some kind of fair compensation for the infrastructure demands they induce.
Sure, if they put the same requirements to pay on everyone. But specifically targeting one major competitor to the for profit company that is controlled by the same person who controls the nonprofit?
That gets into a pretty.sticky situation real quick.
I agree. And whether or not Automattic gets the money or WordPress.org does matter, but so does the way any such transaction is structured.
If Automattic is an infrastructure vendor (in a technical sense at least) to WordPress.org, it’s still reasonable that Automattic doesn’t want to just give its competitors free infrastructure.
I own a hosting business that’s heavily built upon WordPress and even I — at a scale immensely smaller than WP Engine - CDN some of my critical plugins and themes myself. (For a lot of reasons.)
WP Engine is absolutely massive. The load they put on systems that they consume from isn’t trivial. Asking for remuneration from a competitor that is using your services, according to their means, isn’t anticompetitive.
If a8c wants WPE to mirror the plugin and theme repos, they maybe should have asked for that. MM led out of the gate with his now-well-worn "existential threat" rhetoric and actually managed to escalate it from there. As one reddit commentator put it, "you catch more flies with honey than with lighter fluid".
The WP ecosystem needs mirrors anyway, but at this point I think it needs outright alternate repos, not under control of a8c in any way. This could be an attractive proposition to plugin/theme devs, because in this case, MM has been poisoning his own well for some time now (https://meta.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/6511). What are the odds that MM will accept a patch to WP core that allows alternate plugin/theme stores?
At the rate things are going though, a hard fork of the GPL'd core is looking more attractive every day. It just needs a catchy name. ClassicPress is already out there, but ... meh. How about FreePress?
To me, I think it's more that it shows they're one entity and then it is a massive issue about the tax write offs Automattic will have been claiming for years. But, I guess we'll see because WP Engine is going to come out swinging on this. They have to.
There is also the fact that WP Engine sponsored a WordPress Foundation event and then was kicked out of it because of this dispute. The WordPress foundation accepted 75k knowing what WP Engine was doing and then didn't honour the deal.
This is also the most shocking thing to me, that Matt seems to be very blasé about using Automattic and the foundation more or less interchangeably and in a very public way to further his goals. So other than the tax writeoffs what was the point of creating the foundation? Where is this guy's legal counsel? Surely they have to be screaming their heads off right now because from the outside every indication now is that the Foundation is really just an extension of Automattic that exists to dodge taxes and whether it is claiming its nonprofit status legally is now becoming a question mark. This is so far for Matt to have fallen and taken WordPress with him
They're represented by Perkins Coie. Who, even as someone from the EU who doesn't do any legal stuff, I have heard of and know are very good. I think they'll be kind of loving this mess. Because even though this is a mess, they're going to get paid to deal with the mess.
It doesn't matter that Automattic keeps track. For the contribution to be fiscally relevant, the Foundation needs to keep track and release receips (and presumably report the totals somewhere).
If the non-profit is doing something for the benefit of the for-profit it’s the reverse of a donation - unless you really meant a “donation” from the foundation to the company.
> unless you really meant a “donation” from the foundation to the company
Yeah, that's what I meant.
Essentially laundering money through the 501c3 to try and negate taxes. In this case actual money never changed hands, but what is the financial value of cutting off your competitor from the theme/plugin repo?...
> The fact that those boundaries are crossed means that anyone who is in competition with Automattic might have any and all ecosystems that Matt has any control over leveraged against them if they upset Matt or Automattic in any way.
I think the fact those boundaries have been crossed will be a massive legal issue for WordPress.org and Automattic since they'll have problems proving they're two separate entities and they will have been using that as a charity as a tax write-off. What is the penalty for tax evasion where you create a fake charity to write tax off of? It's prison, right?
>Last week, in a blog post, Mullenweg said WP Engine was contributing 47 hours per week to the “Five for the Future” investment pledge to contribute resources toward the sustained growth of WordPress. Comparatively, he said Automattic was contributing 3,786 hours per week. He acknowledged that while these figures are just a “proxy,” there is a large gap in contribution despite both companies being a similar size and generating around a half billion dollars in revenue.
It seems to me that it isn't a simple "dispute." Automattic is contributing to WP org, but WP Engine isn't. If WP org was completely neutral, they still would have reasons to side with Automattic over WP Engine on this.
That’s really not a fair statement from him given:
1. Based on their github orgs, there is effectively no separation between wordpress.org and Automattic.
2. The core WP contributors trac has a long history of not really being welcome to new contributions. Outside of the design decisions coming from Automattic, third party contributions either die in multi-year deliberations or get directed to the plugin system.
3. The development culture around WP, which largely revolves around the plugin ecosystem - has always trended towards paid plugins over OSS software.
The quote says WP Engine is contributing. WP Engine also gave WP.org 75k in sponsorship money, I would say that's a contribution. It's also important to know that after WP.org took that 75k sponsorship money, they kicked them out of the event they sponsored.
I suspect that his figure on the number of hours is somewhat cooked up and biased. Did he cite a reliable and reasonable source of data that we can all consult to check the veracity of this claim?
this dispute is with wordpress though. “wordpress” is not a generic term. if i called my company “MSengine”, and described it as “the most trusted microsoft platform” (a phrase i copied straight from wpengine.com)… i would get a cease and desist almost immediately.
even in the open source community, there are dozens (probably more) linux distros that have been told by ubuntu to rename their projects from “ubuntu x” to something else, for example. there are no trademark grants contained in the gpl or any of the popular open source licenses.
the only mystery is why they’ve waited so long to enforce their trademark.. but matt says they’ve been working on a deal “for a while”.. and i guess we’ll have to wait until the court case to see what that means.
The WordPress trademark guides say explicitly that "WP" is allowed to be used by others. Several other parts of the wording the WP Engine uses are also explicitly allowed. So your whole first two paragraphs are mistaken.
It also explicitly says you can't use "Wordpress" in your product names, and WP Engine is doing that. I thought it might be common, but the other big providers do not use WordPress in their product names.
Come now, this seems to be a huge abuse of "trademark" of a term. Wordpress may be open source, but having the actual name of the "Opensource" thing be trademarked by a non-profit (that's also who-knows-how-much controlled by a for-profit entity) seems like such a dick move. I'm gonna start adding it to my list... OpenAI, Mozilla Foundation, Wordpress.
Edit. Side note:
I looked up the Linux trademark usage guidelines. Looks like half the internet is infringing on this one too if you squint. So maybe this all boils down to a case of "Don't be a jerk" that some entities adhere to when it comes to protecting their trademark, whilst others like Automattic use it to bully competitors.
Or it's WP Engine being a jerk, and this is just a way to put some pressure on them.
Look at it this way - WordPress is the #1 platform for websites. It is a free, Open-source, and huge asset to the community. Are you going to shit on the guys who made it and gave it away because you have some sympathy for some overpriced, hosting company?
If the Wordpress team disappeared, it would be a tragedy. If WP Engine disappeared it would be nothing.
> Wordpress may be open source, but having the actual name of the "Opensource" thing be trademarked by a non-profit (that's also who-knows-how-much controlled by a for-profit entity) seems like such a dick move.
I get the "ick" factor here, but there doesn't really seem to be a better alternative. If "OpenSourceWare" isn't trademarked by non-profit "OpenSourceSoft", the options are either a) no trademark, and it's a free-for-all where the biggest marketing budget and SEO teams get the biggest return on mindshare and search results or b) Oracle gets the trademark and nobody else is allowed to use it.
The page you linked applies to trademarks owned by the Linux Foundation. The Linux trademark is actually owned by Linus Torvalds, not by the Linux Foundation; and different rules apply to it, as your link notes.
>For information regarding the Linux trademark, owned by Linus Torvalds, please see the Linux Mark Institute (administered by The Linux Foundation). Your use of the Linux trademark must be in accordance with the Linux Mark Institute’s policy.
Probably (the trademark equivalent of) fair use, because WordPress is what they are selling. If I have a basket of windows disks to sell, I can write Microsoft Windows on my price list because the thing I'm selling is called that.
This analogy came up recently when discussing Elasticsearch. It's flawed.
Free and open source software does not, and has never, required giving up trademark rights. I think the GPLv3 is even explicit about this.
In the Windows case it's fair use of the trademark because you're reselling something you previously bought. That's not applicable here.
WordPress is open source software, but a hosting service has a variety of characteristics unrelated to the nominal software. Besides, WP Engine are disabling key features of the product: of course that's misleading.
if we’re going by the trademark policy, it also says you can’t use the wordpress name in the name of your project or service.
and arguing that “wp” doesn’t mean “wordpress” and therefore is allowed, is exactly the same as me selling “msengine” for microsoft products, and telling everyone “ms” doesn’t mean microsoft. we all know what it stands for for, and if you weren’t sure, you can jut scan the page and see it’s clearly associated with wordpress. if that’s the basis of the legal defense wpengine wants to make in court, they are truly f’d.
Up until this dispute the WordPress trademark policy contained this:
> The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks and you are free to use it in any way you see fit.
Now it's been updated to say this:
> The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks, but please don’t use it in a way that confuses people. For example, many people think WP Engine is “WordPress Engine” and officially associated with WordPress, which it’s not. They have never once even donated to the WordPress Foundation, despite making billions of revenue on top of WordPress.
It's pretty clear that WP Engine has been in compliance with the old trademark policy and that the new one is acknowledging that they don't have legal standing to demand anything about the WP abbreviation (not least because they waited so long to complain about the usage) so they're instead inserting a petulant and childish slight.
microsoft doesn’t have a trademark on “ms” either. like i said, if wpengine is hoping to go into court and explain that wp is not related to wordpress, while selling wordpress services… i dont think its going to go well for them.
this is going to be just as flimsy of a defense as “mikerowesoft”
> if wpengine is hoping to go into court and explain that wp is not related to wordpress, while selling wordpress services… i dont think its going to go well for them.
Of course not. They will (if it goes that far) point out that their use of WP is explicitly in line with the trademark holder's public guidance on that exact point.
You can't tell everybody that it's fine to use wording like that and then sue them when they do it.
There's also "estoppel by laches", which boils down to "you waited too long". Guarantee that's going to be part of WPE's defense too. Then there's the fact that a8c actually invested in WPE while this supposed infringement was taking place.
Trademarks are largely (but not exclusively) about preventing consumer confusion. I can offer a course called "Learn how to use Excel like a pro" and not get sued by MS, as long as I'm not making it seem like I'm Microsoft.
Just like DigitalOcean can say "We will rent you an Ubuntu server". We can argue about whether calling something "Wordpress Hosting" or "Hosting a Wordpress site" is different, but I think WP Engine is being perfectly reasonable. "Wordpress Hosting" is as generic as Kleenex and Xerox at this point.
I've been thinking about this all week since this WP stuff kicked off. You know what's funny, as far as I know I was the first senior person to have a conversation with Ubuntu about that from the DO side, and as far as I recall it (granted it was a long time ago) it was basically them: "Uhm, you can't do that"- me: "maybe, not sure, but probably better to be friends tho yah?" them: "yah" me: "k" - dunno how it is today, but at least till I left, that was how it remained, always earned a shit load of respect in my book, not sure how it'd have gone for us if they decided to really get nasty, but either way, super grateful they didn't, good job Ubuntu people!!!!
The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks and you are free to use it in any way you see fit.
They changed the wording as of this dispute with WP Engine:
The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks, but please don’t use it in a way that confuses people. For example, many people think WP Engine is “WordPress Engine” and officially associated with WordPress, which it’s not. They have never once even donated to the WordPress Foundation, despite making billions of revenue on top of WordPress.
Trademarks need to be defended to be valid. If I started a website "YC Hacker News", Y Combinator would need to defend their trademark (if they think they have one over "YC Hacker News") or the fact that I'm using "YC Hacker News" means they don't have a trademark over that. WP Engine has been around for over a decade. Automattic and the WordPress foundation didn't have an issue with it for such a long time. If you think someone is infringing on your trademark, you can't just let them use it and come back a decade later and change your mind.
In this case, WordPress has even less argument. If Y Combinator said "you can use 'YC' and 'Hacker News' in any way you see fit," they couldn't later come back and say "nooooo, YC sounds like Y Combinator and people get confused!" The WordPress Foundation explicitly allowed everyone to use "WP" in any way they saw fit and disclaimed all trademark over "WP".
Yes, lots of companies/foundations wouldn't have allowed the generic use of "WP" for anyone to use. In this case, they explicitly allowed it and also didn't have a problem with WP Engine's use for well over a decade.
They waited so long to "enforce their trademark" because they don't have a trademark on "WP". They explicitly said so. Now they're trying to create a trademark on a term that's already been in generic use for a while - and explicitly blessed by the WordPress Foundation.
I certainly understand Automattic not liking the fact that they're doing (and paying for) the development work on WordPress while many WordPress users pay WP Engine instead of Automattic/WordPress.com. However, the ship has sailed on claiming that people aren't allowed to use "WP". From where I'm sitting, this feels similar to Elastic, Mongo and other open-source companies disliking it when third parties make money off their open-source code. Of course, WordPress (and Automattic's WordPress.com) wouldn't be the success it is without its open-source nature (just ask Movable Type).
>>>we ask if you’re going to start a site about WordPress or related to it that you not use “WordPress” in the domain name. Try using “wp” instead, or another variation...
Don't condone confusing ip policy if you don't want to end up with confusing product names, especially in a resurgence of 'the domain name is the product' of unlimited tlds.
Definitely bad IP advice, but I think it helps WP Engine to be able to say "look even all the various 'official' Wordpress sites said our name was fine for years".
Wordpress is past its prime. A nice api based platform will replace it very fast. The whole wp concept is wrong from 2024 perspective, cause much of it is API calls from web already and not PHP/html loads.
They will try to move towards enterprise infrastructure with v7 but will probably fail as their (third party) devs are not that good.
I’ve actually seen a lot of PHP code for Wordpress, wrote some, and the only way to get it right today is to make use of a GPT, cause their (WP’s) internals are so many and so weird and inconsistent sometimes.
> Wordpress is past its prime. A nice api based platform will replace it very fast. The whole wp concept is wrong from 2024 perspective, cause much of it is API calls from web already and not PHP/html loads.
I wonder are you very young? People were saying this a decade, even 15 years, ago
I can confirm WordPress felt like it was fundamentally flawed in 2009, yet it amazingly continues to grow in market share.
I think they’ve succeeded by staying stable with minimal large changes for 20 years and maintaining strong backward compatibility. Meanwhile the rest of the web chases the latest technology cycles, where everything needs to be redone every 5 years because there’s a new way to do things.
The developers who make WordPress understand and are pretty empathetic to their audience / user base, and don’t expect them to put in much work to install and maintain their website.
Other technologies seem to almost intentionally create backwards compatibilities in order to set user expectations that, yes you need to put in work to continue use our framework.
Not much younger anymore but still following Wordpress. This time the difference is GPT which writes and modifies html static site as if it was WP render.
Conclusion: This isn't about OSS, it's about money (and power).
Shamelessly, MM has dug himself a hole. If X is any indication, going forward there are few in the community who will trust him. A leader who isn't trusted is no leaser at all. Evidently he realizes this and is stuck doubling down on stupid. Rinse and repeat.
If feel bad for the people who took off work, went to WordCamp US and they keynote they got was a complete turd.
>If feel bad for the people who took off work, went to WordCamp US and they keynote they got was a complete turd.
I feel like this is a half empty half full kind of situation. Some people might think like you but others might view it as probably the most memorable keynote in Wordpress history (because if all the drama).
If they had an informal development in exchange for server access type relationship then that would qualify as some sort of obligation.
Doesn't really have anything to do with open source though. Haven't seen anything about matt/wordpress.org/Automattic trying to prevent them from using open source code.
Gets even more wild when you consider Automattic invested in WP Engine's Series A in 2011, despite all this insidious trademark abuse commencing in 2010.
VS Code is a product of Microsoft Corp, not a nonorofit foundation. Wordpress.org is a nonprofit foundation, and as a nonprofit, there are rules they have to follow that for profit organizations don't have to.
Part of what's so weird about the communication from Matt here is that WordPress.org is not getting sued by anyone—indeed, as far as I can tell WP Engine isn't suing anyone.
All that happened is that WP Engine sent a cease and desist letter to Automattic. WordPress.org misrepresenting the situation is not a good look.
I went to WP Engines website and on it they say "Host your WordPress site with the WordPress experts".
It feels confusing to me. The word "the" makes me explicitly think this is Wordpress themselves. They are "the" experts. WP Engine makes it pretty clear they are Wordpress. It is front and center. It has a different meaning than "Host your WordPress site with WordPress experts".
No-one is being sued (yet) and wordpress.org was not targeted in any way. Matt is being dishonest by repeating this lie anywhere and everywhere. Including on the very page you linked.
WPEngine sent a cease and desist letter addressed to, and targetting only, Matt Mullenweg and his for profit company Automattic. WPEngine are explicitly not targeting wordpress.org in the letter. You can read it here: https://wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Cease-and-De...
Side note: wp.org is indeed mentioned a couple times in the letter but only when referencing Matt's blog post on the site, the trademark rules, and some technical information around the revisions feature. The "demands" part of the letter address Matt and Automattic exclusively.
Matt knows that an attack on dot org would rally everyone to his side, which is why he is repeating this lie over and over. He is trying to use the community as shield.
This is also (IMHO) why he shut off access to dot org. He wants WPEngine to be seen taking some sort of action against the community.
Matt is constantly shifting between "Matt from Automattic" and "Matt from the WP Foundation" wherever it suits him. It's sickening. He needs to be removed from the foundation immediately.
True, but in this case we can simply judge based on the actions taken.
The claims (trademark violation, no contributing anything back) seem pretty sensible and borne out in practice.
WordPress is an open source project stewarded by a foundation that set rules for its use. If you don't follow them there are consequences. As simple as that, really.
These rules (paying a license or contributing back) seem sensible too.
Normalizing people leeching off the work of other doesn't seem like a good approach.
Some people might disagree with the philosophy — perfectly fine! They can write their own blog engine and release it in a permissive open-source license and make copyrights freely available to anyone. This is a blog engine, not exactly antitrust material.
It's not really crossing the boundaries, in this kind of situations I don't know if people is misunderstanding genuinely or they do the interests of corporations because they have interests in WPEngine. WordPress.org is not going against all competitors of WordPress.com, is going against a competitor that has high load towards free resources of WordPress.org, having many customers, but not contributing anything towards those free resources. And WordPress.org has banned that leecher from keep stressing their systems for free with no contributions. When Matt said to go to pick another WordPress hosting instead of WPEngine, WordPress.com wasn't mentioned either.
Because they would be represented in the org. If you choose to stay on the sidelines, should you be surprised to find out your not important to the action?
Between my 69 Beetle and P 912, Elon can shove his supercharger up his ... sorry for the humblebrag, I love them passionately in a way no Tesla will ever be loved, particularly being 40-50 years old.
I think overhyped in the sense of NVDA market cap but not overhyped in the sense of the utility. NVDA is useful for large data centers where companies can be the middle man for queries. I don't think this will be the future of LLM's for very long.
I think as the technology adapts, the utility will be having chips on your existing hardware that can provide this functionality. Will LLMs always need super high end gpu's to process requests or will the algorithms improve enough to allow quick speeds with lesser hardware? I will tell you one thing for certain. NVDA's stock price is not based on any possibility of algorithm improvements and only based on the idea that more and more resources will be needed. It's based on the idea that there will always be the need for massive data centers to process these requests..
Justified or not doesn't really matter. If your entire company threatens to quit then you made the wrong choice. Hopefully many of the old board is gone because a blunder of that magnitude shows extreme disconnect.
Sounds more to me like they were naive when it came to the inevitable PR war that would follow. They should have come out guns blazing with all the dirt they had. Instead they said very little and it just appeared nonsensical.
Except that I don't think it was for PR reasons that almost the entire company sided with Altman. I'd say it has much more to do with the profitability and the goal of continuing to work on interesting problems with the best resources.
Humanity would prefer no cigarette companies but sure, Philip Morris employees and shareholders would love to still have it. Remember that "OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits all of humanity." If their for-profit arm is obstructing that...
Look if you think the whole company should be shutdown, then say that.
But don't pretend like any of the employees are going to go along with that. Just admit that the goal is to actively sabotage the company and shut it all down.
Then, all those employees can understand what you want, and they can go work for Microsoft instead, doing the exact same job that they were doing before, but now without the board sabotaging the company.
First, my statement was a hypothetical that shows its fairly obvious in the abstract that just because a group's activity is beneficial to themselves doesn't mean humanity needs to tolerate it, if it's at the expense of everyone else. Hello cartels, carbon emissions, etc.
When it comes to this specific case, the board did not think the mission of "AGI benefiting humanity" warranted shutting the company down. (they believe that being in the lead is better steering than Google / FB / etc.) But they also believed that Sama was sabotaging the safety aspects that would lead to the better steering of AGI for humanity.
The board expected people to have joined OpenAI in support of the mission but Sama sabotaged that with the $1m+ pay packages that meant these people prioritized their personal wealth. The Google founders had talked about how hard it was to ignore financial incentives, a majority of employees were in uproar every time the stock flatlined for too long.
Board's priorities: some group having the best chance of AGI benefiting humanity > Company shutting down > OpenAI makes humanity worse via AGI
The employees should've understand what the OpenAI mission and board's duty was the moment they joined the company. If this wasn't one of the first topics in interviews, then Sam sabotaged the company's mission.
They made the right choice by firing him, and the wrong choice by reinstating him. If firing him had blown up OpenAI, that would have been better than leaving him in charge.
You wouldnt store any data at all on the blockchain. You would force every payment the goverment makes to go through a blockchain. Likely a centrally controlled one which would invoke no fees. On the other end the payment is cashed out for usd.
Whether it's a good idea or not who knows but your comment misrepresents the concept.
Executive summary: If the campaign slogan is too empty to be accurately represented, I can't misrepresent it; "Private blockchain" is a fake term for when people don't want to admit they're building something else far simpler and saner; If everything is a first-class blockchain transaction, that also means forcing hundreds of millions of American taxpayers and welfare-recipients and companies to use the crypto-system from the other side--good luck with that!
_____________
> your comment misrepresents the concept
Why do you believe this particular politician has a sufficiently firm policy that it is even capable of being mis-represented? [0]
Is there something from his campaign which clearly lays out what he means by that slogan?
> Likely a centrally controlled [blockchain]
Pet peeve: That's not a thing unless we time-travel back to the 1990s when people meant something very different with the word "blockchain." It's a contradiction in terms, along with "private blockchain".
Those paradoxical euphemisms tend show up when people--for reasons of ideology or startup investor money--don't want to admit that the B-word is not actually good for their use case, and they're trying to avoid admitting that they're just doing a classic distributed database instead of the Sexy Thing.
The core feature that sets a modern blockchain apart is unrestricted membership where anybody can spin up any number of nodes/identities to participate. The challenges stemming from that are what cause a whole cascade of compensating algorithms and game-theory incentives, such as using wasted CPU cycles to curb influence.
If you don't have that requirement, everything becomes orders of magnitude faster and cheaper and simpler.
> You would force every payment the goverment makes to go through a blockchain.
Leaving intragovernmental transfers aside, hat also means you would force every private entity that sends or accepts government money to be a counterparty in the same system.
So supposing your great-aunt can't figure out a cold wallet then she can't get any medicaid for food this month. Does that still sound practical and reasonable?
> The core feature that sets a modern blockchain ...
blockchain means many paradigms and implementations, just like databases have many paradigms and implementations, or democracy for that matter
What you are referring to is the "public, permissionless" blockchain variant. There are permissioned blockchains as well, like Hyperledger Fabric, that would form a very efficient system for use in government. The key factors I see here are
- the immutable ledger
- public transparency & audibility
- standardize transaction contracts
- efficiency of transfers between depts or gov't & citizen
A c&d is a nice way of asking you to shutdown before they sue you. Most companies will not bother unless they think they have a case against you. Your choices are shut down or stay up and hire a lawyer to defend you in the coming case against you. Even if they do not have a strong case you will end up being in court a while. Keep in mind you have a source of income now but what may happen is they sue you then release their own api and cut your revenue at the same time. It's risky to build products on other peoples businesses especially if they dont want you to. I am not just talking out my ass. I was in the same situation on one of my projects and chose to shut down when I saw others going through lawsuits. At the very least you need to speak to a lawyer and make sure you can win a case.
In this specific instance you are providing a product that interfaces with their product. Your product allowing breaking TOS is likely grounds for their lawsuit. For similar cases look up bot manufacturers in World of Warcraft vs Blizzard. They won all their cases by saying the code that is in the ram is their property.
Edit: I also wanted to add that even if you are somehow not against their tos right now they can always update their tos to not allow your type of service..
Because they think their line of work shouldn't involve any risk.. They don't want to risk filling a unit at a lower price and only being able to raise rate 1-2% per year when if they held off for a year they can charge 15 - 20% more..
If you want to play that game you have to live with the consequences...
Landlords are surprised when they have to deal with what every other business has to. Supply and Demand, and changing market conditions... He has the supply and not enough demand. Sit on your thumbs or lower your price?
While I agree with the sentiment here, Penrose has come up with a model that does make testable hypotheses about what happened before the big bang with his Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Now, I think that as a matter of fact, the predictions he made have turned out to not be true, but at least he came up with a way to test them. If I recall correctly, the predictions had to do with patterns in the CMB that would have been left over from black holes in a universe before the big bang, and those patterns ended up not being there. It wasn't the right answer, but that's science.
Good job. I hope you expand on it more. Maybe consider a browser extension to convert other comment sections that arent hn. I always thought replies to parent comments shouldn't be prioritized over top level parent comments and this layout pushes that idea.
Automattic is a competitor with WPEngine. Wordpress.com is a competitor with WPEngine. Wordpress.org and the Wordpress Foundation IS NOT a competitor with WPEngine.
There is a dispute between Automattic and WPEngine. The resources of Wordpress.org and the Wordpress Foundation should not be leverage in this dispute.
The fact that those boundaries are crossed means that anyone who is in competition with Automattic might have any and all ecosystems that Matt has any control over leveraged against them if they upset Matt or Automattic in any way.
It is very poor taste and changes the perspective of the product. Instead of a professional entity who will engage professionally it is now a form of leverage that a single person could wield against anyone who crosses them.
To be clear these same exact actions can be taken against anyone who insults one individual. This look is embarrassing.