The coding interview is dead, at least for my team at Anthropic. I've seen enough to know that it no longer provides signal. I removed it from loops this month. I have a spicy, optimistic take - I think there's an opportunity for junior engineers: felixrieseberg.com/hunger-be…

There have been three key critiques in regards to the @prlnet raise, but they are largely overblown in my view: (1) The lab sells AI for dollars and keeps any PEARL it mines, so its investors can profit even if pearl-2:native falls. But PEARL is meant to be a SoV like Bitcoin, so buybacks would start a classic fight over how much of the lab’s revenue goes to shareholders vs token holders. The lab raised its own money to build a business that earns separately. That is the separation the SoV narrative actually needs, and the raise allows the lab to not sell the PEARL it may have for funding. (2) The lab has written every fork and therefore controls the network and would cater to itself. But a fork only sticks if the majority of hashrate runs it and the lab’s $75M fleet would add only 2% to 3%. More importantly, the network won’t survive unless someone actually proves useful mining works, so the lab pushing to prove it outweighs the risk of its control. (3) The lab has never disclosed how much PEARL it holds and the whitepaper says the low starting difficulty was partly meant to fund the team behind it. But the raise was cash for shares and not a token sale, and while we can’t tell which addresses are the lab’s, 98% of the coins mined in launch week have never moved. Although more transparency around their current holdings would help the market give more confidence around the entity. If you agree or disagree let me know...