> Stallman has always been right. It's mind boggling just how right he was about everything.

Mind boggling right about not allowing GCC to be used as a library, his comments on Jeffrey Esptein, a refusal to in any way compromise (e.g. the GNU/Linux meme), etc...

Oh and a recognition that free software, while nice, does not in any way solve the underlying issues he claims it does. Similarly to how letting everyone walk around their local water treatment facility and perform chemical tests doesn't really work and instead the state regulates and hires experts to monitor the water supply...

> Jane Street skims money from our retirement accounts by building expensive clocks that the rest of us don’t have access to and adversarial queue modeling

How does Jane Street skim money from those who hold passive index funds?

> The company needs a certain amount of productivity at each point.

Um, no?

> I reckon this move is related to bitcoin doing poorly. A LOT of their revenue is bitcoin related and I reckon they realized they're going to have an absolute stinker of a Q1 '26 result...

I had to look this up - in the last 12 months total revenue was ~24 billion of which ~8.5 billion was from the Bitcoin "ecosystem"! Truly bizzare to stake your company on this...

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001512673/55ca61a...

> Musk has shown that Twitter can operate with 5% (approximately?) of the workforce he inherited

Is X profitable? I don't think the argument was that Twitter couldn't _operate_ with 5% of the workforce (i.e. skeleton sysadmin crew), the issue was whether Twitter could make money and remain a viable business.

It seems that Twitter is no longer a viable business (i.e. less advertising spend, decline in users - especially high-value advertiser targets who now spend more time on LinkedIn, etc).

> laying off a lot of people was seen as a sign that the company was in trouble, but not now

I agree that saying you are laying people off because of AI is a lovely narrative for failing companies!