Totally matches my experience, and it feels bizarre inside-looking-out that nobody else talks about it. Hardware from 2010-2020 was remarkably stable, and CPUs are still as stable as they were, but we've had this large influx of money spent on these chips that fall over if you look at them funny. I think it leads to a lot of people thinking, "we must be doing something wrong", because it's just outside of their mental model that hardware failures can occur at this rate. But that's just the world we live in.
It's a perfect storm: a lot of companies are doing HPC-style distributed computing for the first time, and lack experience in debugging issues that are unique to it. On top of that, the hardware is moving very fast and they're ill equipped to update their software and drivers at the rate required to have a good experience. On top of that, the stakes are higher because your cluster is only as strong as its weakest node, which means a single hardware failure can turn the entire multi-million dollar cluster into a paperweight, which adds more pressure and stress to get it all fixed. Updating your software means taking that same multi-million dollar cluster offline for several hours, which is seen as a cost rather than a good investment of time. And a lot of the experts in HPC-style distributed computing will sell you "supported" software, which is basically just paying for the privilege of using outdated software that lacks the bug fixes that your cards might desperately need. That model made sense in the 2010s, when linux (kernel and userspace) was less stable and you genuinely needed to lock your dependencies and let the bugs work themselves out. But that's the exact opposite of what you want to be doing in 2026.
You put all of this together, and it's difficult to be confident whether the hardware is bad, or going bad, or whether it's only manifesting because they're exposed to bugs, or maybe both. Yikes, it's no fun.
> Replicating a broadly practiced mitigation mechanism that is established in EU institution and government hiring practices, operational control and access will be restricted to EU citizens located in the EU to ensure that all operators have enduring ties to the EU and to meet the needs of our customers and partners.
I... really don't know if I'd go that far. Better not to abuse Fastly's good will in providing the bandwidth. These things have PyPI distributions specifically because they support legitimate Python projects. For example, Cmake and Ninja are part of a stack intended to support building things for the SciPy ecosystem, using scikit-build. The CUDA stuff is obviously relevant to PyTorch, Tensorflow et. al. And (per the README) "The ziglang Python package redistributes the Zig toolchain so that it can be used as a dependency of Python projects."
Obviously a question of good will arises but for what its worth, I wouldnt consider abuse but rather innovation/lets see where the curiosity leads us too
Some time ago in npm, someone has made packages which can install fonts via npm and use the cdn system provided by it for such
I think its more private than many competitors out there. An google fonts alternative is suggested to be coollabs which uses bunny cdn under the hood but using npm's infrastructure which is usually provided by cloudflare is another great idea as well.
Also you are forgetting something that these are economies of scale.
And they aren't using pypi to distribute the official version of deno or the only way they distribute deno. That would be the case which would incur lots of bandwidth good will you could say, but I think the current use case would likely just have in at best 10s of gigs per day or 100s of gigs per day , this is just a method where python is usually installed and it simplifies the installation of deno a lot and there are some really beneficial concepts which can drive up even including recently yt-dlp
its a good idea for what its worth
For context JSdelivr delivered 20,572 TB data per month for free.
I genuinely consider that deno's python might not even reach even 100 GB data per month and I am exaggerating it a lot like with a strech, Python Cuda modules are usually the largest bandwidth eaters imho
All in all, this is an valid implementation/idea. The abuse of good will complaint doesn't stand that much
I'm not specifically objecting to the Deno distribution, but to the idea of PyPI becoming "the executable distribution mechanism of the future". Since the latter makes it sound like people would use it for things that have nothing to do with Python.
Totally off topic, the pypi zig library has been very helpful for a few of my projects. It's nice to write low level components and have a simple install process.
Why though? What makes PyPI or compatible registries so great for this? On a similar note, Pixi uses the conda packaging mechanism for managing platform agnostic multi-language software distribution. How do these two compare?
> Today, Groq announced that it has entered into a non-exclusive licensing agreement with Nvidia for Groq’s inference technology. The agreement reflects a shared focus on expanding access to high-performance, low cost inference.
> As part of this agreement, Jonathan Ross, Groq’s Founder, Sunny Madra, Groq’s President, and other members of the Groq team will join Nvidia to help advance and scale the licensed technology.
> Groq will continue to operate as an independent company with Simon Edwards stepping into the role of Chief Executive Officer.
> GroqCloud will continue to operate without interruption.
If you were an employee, you were not a founder. A founding-employee would be someone who explicitly "invested" time/money into a company without compensation. If you are also an employee earning a wage you better have a written agreement stating what amount was "investment" and what amount was compensated wage.
Startups typically offer employees, particularly early employees, substantial equity compensation. If the employer is offering this compensation in bad faith, or otherwise preferring one equity holder over another without an explicit contract - then they are at the very least a crappy business partner. A founding engineer with a 2% stake could be missing out on 5-10 million of this transaction.
As an aside, most founders are paid during the entire project. It’s not hard to raise a preseed round to get yourself paid for 6-24 months to work on an idea. If a founder chose to bootstrap - that’s all fine, but let’s not pretend that the employees aren’t taking massive career risks vs “standard” employers.
> If the employer is offering this compensation in bad faith, or otherwise preferring one equity holder over another without an explicit contract - then they are at the very least a crappy business partner.
I don’t know about you, but every company I’ve ever worked at is a shitty business partner if that’s the metric. The standard has always been I get what we agreed to if I was lucky, and otherwise I got full “I’ve altered the deal, pray I don’t alter further” and dared you to defend your rights.
I actually have called their bluff a few times and gotten some money out of it, but it was always a year long event or more to resolution and involved risking even more money on lawyers.
Just one slight problem: people need to eat, and food costs money.
Your startup won't succeed when its founder starves to death. It's why the founder will usually get a bunch of cash during investment rounds [0]: they can't focus on the company if they are constantly worried about cash in their personal life. Unless the founder is already independently wealthy, it is a guarantee that they'll be employed by the company and being paid a living wage. Heck, in some countries this is even legally required!
According to your logic, no successful startup will ever have a founder, as any form of pay instantly degrades them to regular employee, and any kind risk taken and below-market salary is completely irrelevant. Never mind the fact that they are taking home a minimum-wage salary while working 100 hours a week - they are earning a wage so they can't possibly be a founder.
So if this logic already breaks down for the founder, why couldn't it also break down for early employees whose compensation is mostly in stock options? How is their situation any different from the founder's?
Startups often pay a shitty salary in exchange for a decent chunk of stock options, with the implicit promise that you'll make bank if you work hard and make the company successful.
Getting screwed out of your payout by such a totally-not-an-acquisition is wage theft. It's like promising a sales-related bonus at the beginning of the year, and then in December changing the metric to "AI-related sales to the CEO's golf buddies".
Startup options are worthless. The only value most people will ever extract from a startup is the experience they had working there, and the salary that was put in their bank account.
I understand that a lot of inexperienced people (like in this thread) think they're going to get rich though.
No, it is not "wage theft" to not get rich when the company exits (by whatever means).
Nobody expects to get rich off working for a startup. The risks are massive, and very few exit with billion-dollar deals. This is taken into account by the people who work there and accept those stock options: 99.xx% chance of being worth essentially zero, but a tiny yet nonzero chance of being able to retire early when it does a billion-dollar exit. It's a lottery ticket, not a promise - every startup employee understands that.
Groq is now changing the deal after the fact by making those stock options worthless 100% of the time. It's like you participate in a lottery, and then the organizer decides to just not do a draw and keep all the proceeds for themselves. Sorry, but that's theft.
Don't intend to pay out in the unlikely event that you hit it big? Then don't offer stock options to your employees and pay market-rate salaries - plus of course a decent premium for the fact that (unlike an established company) your startup can go bust at any time and doesn't offer stable employment. You can't have it both ways.
Startup options are usually worthless, yes, because very few startups end up getting to a position where the options are worth something.
> No, it is not "wage theft" to not get rich when the company exits
I don't think anyone in this thread thinks they're gonna get rich by working for a startup. There's a hope that they will, that's why they are working, but there's no expectation. Maybe there's an expectation of getting a nice tidy sum after an exit (in the 5 or 6 figures) but not in the 7 or 8 figures, at least not if they're just employees and not founders.
What's being discussed is a startup exiting for billions of dollars and the employees with equity seeing zero of it.
Working for a startup usually means lower wages and longer hours, for the chance at striking it rich if the company succeeds. If employees don't see anything when the company succeeds, there's literally no upside to working for a startup.
I recall having to sit through many trainings on how to value employee equity. My experience is that most startup employers try to BS what it means to convince people to value their equity at a significantly higher price than they otherwise should.
If the employer is explicitly making the employee options worthless, then they should be obligated to disclose this. Otherwise it’s trivial to engineer a corporate entity which pays the employees while “licensing” the technology from an IP holding firm. Later they can simply sell the IP holding firm without owing employees a dollar.
The implicit promise is only partially true. Very rarely you can find a proven talent that will actually forego significant salary. Often time when that happens the person is close to founders and will have a significant role in shaping the startup and will get quasi-acquired too.
This promise may have been more true before 2010s where public companies were not paying as much in liquid cash and private companies were not valued so aggressively. Fact is most employees take the startup offer because they don't actually have a liquid offer that's super competitive at that moment, or they are just kind of bored and taking a break of the corporate job that does not give them too many responsibilities, i.e. they are compensated via the title, not just the promise of making bank.
That just means you’re pulling from the lower end of the talent pool. There is nothing wrong with this, but usually talent is correlated with outcome. Most hot startups which are going places are near impossible to get into even for folks with good offers.
Your last sentence is not mutually exclusive with my statement. Both could be simultaneously true. The sheer number of big company employees compared to hot startup makes it hard for everyone good to get into the startup, especially considering they usually have more specific needs. That said it could also be the case that the hot startup cannot easily get good employees from big company.
My point was more that the high end ones they do get are usually in the front piece of the airplane in the acquisition split. Also, the really hot startups are actually paying quite a bit of cash upfront so the original premise of employee sacrifice isn’t as true.
If you were an employee, you were not a founder. A founding-employee would be someone who explicitly "invested" uncompensated time/money into a company without compensation and also worked as an employee. If you are also an employee earning a wage you better have a written agreement stating what amount was "investment" and what amount was compensated wage.
In my career I've seen startups "shut down" and lay off the NA team.
I've seen venture capital acquire startups for essentially nothing laying off the entire product team aside from one DevOps engineer to keep everything running.
I've seen startups go public and have their shares plummet to zero before the rank-and-file employees could sell any shares (but of course the executives were able to cash out immediately).
I've seen startups acquired for essentially nothing from the lead investor.
In none of these scenarios did any of the Engineers receive anything for their shares.
Yet every day people negotiate comp where shares are valued as anything more than funny money.
As this gets more common, I think it will eventually lead to startups having a hard time attracting talent with lucrative equity compensation. It will be interesting to see how long it takes until this catches on among employees, but I already wouldn't take any positions in startups with a significant payment in equity anymore. The chances are slim that this pays out anyways, but now even when you are successful, noone will stop some megacorp from just buying the product and key employees and leaving everyone else with their stake in the dust.
At my last job search I didn’t consider any equity based startups seriously because of this trend. It was already such a tenuous path as it stood, but now with the norm established it seems like it’s become impossible for a rank and file employee to get paid out.
I’m more curious how angel investors are being treated in these exits. If _they_ dry up the whole pipeline goes away
Investors with enough into the deal to fight it in court get enough to not fight it. Key employees needed by the 'not acquirer' get compensation sufficient to retain them, although increasingly much of this is under a deferred vesting arrangement to ensure they stay with the 'not acquirer'.
Non-essential employees and small investors without the incentive or pockets to fund a legal fight get offered as little as possible. This structure also provides lots of flexibility to the 'not acquirer' when it comes to paying off existing debts, leases, contracts, etc. Basically, this is the end of being an early employee or small angel investor potentially resulting in a lucrative payoff. You have to remain central and 'key' all the way through the 'not acquisition'. I expect smaller early stage investors will start demanding special terms to guarantee a certain level of payout in a 'not acquisition'. I also expect this to create some very unfortunate situations because an asset sale (as they used to be done), could be a useful and appropriate mechanism to preserve the products and some jobs of a failing (but not yet fully failed) company - which was better for customers and some employees than a complete smoking crater.
that is a great point. it’s one thing to occasionally rugpull employees, who are still at least paid for their services and robbed only of their EV on their options (i say “only”, though i find this increasingly common practice to be absolutely deplorable, to be clear). but how could investors possibly be happy with this becoming the new normal? will it get to the point where these sorts of faux acquisitions also involve paying out investors and only shafting employees? at that point you are only really even getting like a 20% discount over acquiring the company outright, which hardly seems worth it. which is to say that your point is very astute: the investors are definitely the linchpin here.
The company still got $20B of cash(?) in its books, it can pay dividends to its shareholders (investors) and they get their payment. The company can go down the drain afterwards. If it can still make money with its remaining assets that's only a nice small bonus.
So the only ones getting shafted are the employees.
I suppose the firm could simply roll the 20 billion into a long term asset. It’s not a big deal to anyone except employees if the asset never pays out. Departed employees would not be privy to how the money is eventually exited from the now shell company 20 years hence.
true, but given that recruiters take upward of 30% of first-year comp it starts to really flirt with being a wash. if the acquiree’s employees are truly that odious, the founders aren’t worth the price of admission. just look at the scale.ai guy: he is in wayyy over his head now, and if those billions mattered at all to zuck he would probably regret it, ex post.
It's already happening. You need a good lawyer to read equity terms to make sure you aren't going to get rug pulled by a founder later on. Even so I still consider equity to generally be worth zero unless the founder is someone I trust fully, since there are so many ways for them to legally not give you anything.
The equity in almost all startups has already been a bait and switch for more than a decade. Most will refuse to answer you about % of equity share anyways, but if they did it's tiny tiny amounts, and in the end half the time it's up to the acquiring entity just how seriously they end up taking it. If you landed at an entity like Google (as I did from the place I was working 15+ years ago) you could be treated well. Elsewhere, not great.
During boom times it made more financial sense to go straight to a FAANG if you could.
If you ask me there has been a major shift into trying to make "startups" into just another form of corporation. It started years ago when I started seeing things like "Founder Engineer - 0.5% equity" in jobs here.
Can you say more about why mechanically she didn't get anything?
If you exercise your options you have real stock in the company, so I don't see how you can get shafted here.
Did investors do some sort of dividend cash out before employees were able to exercise their options? (Obviously shady, but more about investors/leadership being unethical than the deal structure).
Would love to know more about how this played out.
Multiple share classes are the norm even before the new acquisition types we see here. It’s extremely common in an acquisition for employee shares to be worth nothing while investor and founder shares are paid out.
But these new “acquisitions” aren’t even that. They are not acquisitions at all. They just hire the talent directly with perhaps an ip rights agreement thrown in as a fig leaf.
I'm well aware of dual class shares, but preferences are typically 1x, and none of the deals were for less than the amount raised, so they're not relevant here.
The fact that these are not really acquisitions doesn't change the fact that Groq the entity now has $20b.
Money can't just "go" somewhere, it needs a reason first, at least for book-keeping. I mean, VCs can get their invested capital back but on top of that, how would that money be transfered? $20B is a lot and for sure the VCs will not just write an invoice of $18B for consulting services.
Hey, husband of that friend here,
The bought company had huge debts to the investors (it is a startup, not tiny but small one, ran for several years) and after cashing those out from the purchase deal, the employees were left with shares that were worth 0$.
(might be that the founders also grabbed some money out of that purchase, no one knows tho)
The employees of that bought company were given an incentive by the buying company to stay for a while and help tearing down and integrating their product into the buying company.
One could say shady, I'd say that it was just a bad deal.
It's definitely true that common stock gets $0 if the acquisition price is <= (sum raised + debt).
That sort of sounds like the startup wasn't doing well, and the acquisition wasn't for a lot of money (relative to amount raised), which seems very different from these Groq/Windsurf situations.
There have been at least a half dozen of these deals in the past 1-2 years including Google “licensing” CharacterAI to pull their founders back into Google as valued employees.
In the deal mentioned above: my guess is that preferred class shareholders and common shares got paid out but the common shareholders had such a low payout that it rounded down to zero for most employees.
This can happen even in a regular acquisition because of the equity capital stack of who gets paid first. Investors typically require a 1x liquidation preference (they get their investment back first no matter what).
Liquidation preferences are typically 1x these days, so they only matter when companies are sold at fire sale prices where basically nobody is making any money.
The deals are all weird so it's hard to really know what's happening, but if Groq gets $20b, I don't see how common stock holders don't get paid.
Special dividend to priority class and retain the rest to grow the remaining sham company?
I've seen some discussion that paying out normal employees might look more like an acquisition on paper which they may want to avoid for ftc reasons. I've also seen some discussion that this is a quid pro quo to the trump family to get Nvidia back into China (jr. bought in at the September financing round..).
Lots of speculation in general, including why nvda chose to spend 20bil on this.
I was involved in a (obviously smaller) situation with an acquisition that went to a top consumer CPU maker (you can guess). The investors got nothing as the buyout money was used to fund new pivots in the existing company. So no options or shares were monetized and investors maintained their existing stake that had technically the save value, just most of the value was temporarily all cash. The only people to make out were the ones who went with the asset sale (retention bonus stuff) and the leadership that stayed (raises, etc.)
Indeed, as justincormack comments: ”It is not structured as an outright acquisition to avoid US Gov't anti trust scrutiny, but effectively it probably is”. “Non-exclusive” ? Ummmm, yeah, right, sure. You can probably bet there is an private understanding that Groq will no longer offer it's “top of the line” best technology to competitors of Nvidia. Some may see this as a clever, “slight of the hand” attempt for Nvidia to maintain it's perceived dominance & lead in GPU-TPU development.
“Non-exclusive” does not in any form or fashion spell out that all Nvidia's competitors can and will obtain the very top, cutting edge Groq technology as Nvidia will obtain . . .
Looks like a normal comment to me, what makes you think otherwise? It has pretty much no hallmarks of being generated, and plenty that point towards the opposite.
Starting the comment pointing out the name of the user you're replying to, and quoting the exact comment you're replying to, does sound really strange.
> As part of this agreement, Jonathan Ross, Groq’s Founder, Sunny Madra, Groq’s President, and other members of the Groq team will join Nvidia to help advance and scale the licensed technology.
A really strange agreement where top executives of a company "join" another company for the benefit of the other company.
In the current political climate you only need to slightly pretend to care about the appearance of being a monopoly, just enough to give plausible deniability in a sound bite. Anything else isn't worth it.
This seems a lot like something where the acquirer avoids paying for equity. With key leaders gone what do employees of Groq get? Their company isn’t being acquired really so they just stay illiquid?
Have you considered that maybe Matt isn’t all that surprised by this optimization, but he is excited about how cool it is, and he wants readers of all backgrounds to also be excited about how cool it is, and is just feigning surprise so that he can share a sense of excitement with his audience?
Whether they get the question exactly right and can pinpoint the specific compiler passes or algebraic properties responsible for reductions like this is totally irrelevant and not what you’re actually looking for or asking about. It’s a very good jumping point for a conversation about optimization and testing whether they’re the type of developer who has ever looked at the assembly produced in their hotpath or not.
Anyone who dumbly suggests that loops in source code will always result in loops in assembly doesn’t have a clue. Anyone who throws their hands up and says, “I have no idea, but I wonder if there’s some loop invariant or algebraic trick that can be used to optimize this, let’s think about it out loud for a bit” has taken a compiler class and gets full marks. Anyone who says, “I dunno, let’s see what godbolt does and look through the llvm-opt pane” gets an explicit, “hire this one” in the feedback to the hiring manager.
It’s less about what they know and more about if they can find out.
So in other words, it isn't "basic and essential optimizations" that you would expect even a junior engineer to know (as your comment implies), but a mechanism to trigger a conversation to see how they think about problems. In fact, it sounds like something you wouldn't expect them to know.
I didn’t write the GP comment. I wouldn’t call this basic and essential, but I would say that compilers have been doing similar loop simplifications for quite some time. I’d expect any mid to senior developer with C/C++ on their resume to at least consider the possibility that the compiler can entirely optimize away a loop.
> In fact, it sounds like something you wouldn't expect them to know.
I’d go a step further, I don’t think anyone, no matter how experienced they are, can confidently claim that optimized assembly will or won’t be produced for a given loop. That’s why the best answer above is, “I dunno”. If performance really matters, you have to investigate and confirm that you’re getting good code. You can have an intuition for what you think might happen, and that’s a useful skill to have on its own, but it’s totally useless if you don’t also know how to confirm your suspicions.
My question is in the context of doing those optimizations yourself, understanding what can be done to make the code more efficient and how to code it up, not the compiler engineering to make that happen.
Yikes, gross. That’s like an option of last resort IMO. I’d rather maintain the clean loop-based code unless I had evidence that the compiler was doing the wrong thing and it was in my critical path.
The compiler is only able to perform certain optimizations that have no observable behaviour.
For example it can only parallelize code which is inherently parallelizable to begin with, and unless you design your algorithm with that in mind, it's unlikely to be.
My belief is that it's better to be explicit, be it with low-level or high-level abstractions.
The fundamental problem with bubbles like this, is that you get people like this who are able to take advantage of the The Gell-Mann amnesia effect, except the details that they’re wrong about are so niche that there’s a vanishingly small group of people who are qualified to call them out on it, and there’s simultaneously so much more attention on what they say because investors and speculators are so desperate and anxious for new information.
I followed him on Twitter. He said some very interesting things, I thought. Then he started talking about the niche of ML/AI I work near, and he was completely wrong about it. I became enlightened.
reply