Hyperland being funded for 3 years benefits all distros and users that rely on it. The same goes for Quickshell. And my guess is that this is only the beginning. They will support any project that Omarchy is built on. They even reached out to AUR maintainers to support them financially and build better, more stable infrastructure for any distro that depends on AUR, but they refused.
You realize Omarchy just started a couple of months ago, right? The founder himself put his money and time where his mouth is.
Most of the thousands of distros are just a collection of config changes in GNOME, etc. There is no fundamental change in 99% of Linux distros. It's just different configurations of different tools, with the main differences being the package manager and window manager they use, plus their configs. Everything else is exactly the same.
That's a very simplistic and end-user-oriented view of what a distro is. Somebody hosts the infrastructure that Omarchy runs on. Somebody maintains the packages and applies specialized patches and communicates upstream. Omarchy doesn't do that. And that's fine.
Plenty of distros start out at that level. But those fledgling distros don't get these kinds of sponsorships. Why Omarchy?
Omarchy does do that. They host their own packaging servers, which they keep intentionally a month behind Arch's to catch broken packages. They ship a custom kernel. They have a small AUR-like extra repository as well.
> Why Omarchy?
Because DHH has friends. It's not anything more special than that.
They just founded the Foundation, and the money has not been allocated yet. But Hyperland, Quickshell, and some others already got 3 year sponsorship deals.
The AUR maintainers refused the cooperation and the money. So they will start working on new package management for Omarchy.
My guess, though, is that most of the money will go to DHH's obsession with Macs and anti-Apple stance (porting Linux to work on M architecture), either by directly funding Asahi Linux or by forking it to speed up development.
Omarchy ISO is downloaded 20000 times A DAY. It's in the top 3 distros now. Only very sad and delusional people hate its success. I pity them, but I don’t want them anywhere near me.
They've already said that they refuse to work with DHH, which is fine, but the Asahi Devs and Arch Linux Devs have let politics overtake their entire existance and I'm happy someone is finally changing the status quo and shaking things up.
Let money actually go to competant people and not leftists that will ban you from their entire ecosystem if you even slightly disagree with their politics.
I won’t repeat the numerous political blog posts he’s constantly posting these days for a so-called “tech only” guy.
Instead I’ll say that he’s currently doing a big podcast tour where he explicitly whines about how his employees pushed him to (he elides this part) remove a “funny list of customer names” on the grounds of said list being racially charged. And since he was “bullied” into doing that, he’s been on a tear lately declaring tech to be filled to the brim with political lunatics who just want to inject politics into everything. The precise thing that he’s still doing, years later.
Why do people keep insisting that subscription plans are subsidized? They are not. API prices are outrageous, designed to milk enterprise users. They probably have an 80-90% profit margin on subscription plans.
Inference is cheap; Dax once said on a podcast that Opencode has a close to 90% profit margin on the openweight models it provides inference for (at 10x cheaper pricing). Those models are close in size and spec to models from large labs.
OpenAI leaked financial data (2025) suggests this - it has $5.7 billion for marketing which 44% of revenue. It’s hard to explain where these billions go other than into subsidised subscription plans and a free tier.
Because using chinese models on OpenRouter is way more expensive than the equivalent codex sub, unless you use something clearly inferior like deepseek flash.
Not really. MFA still protects against the much more common case where the password itself is compromised, either through a breach, reuse, phishing, interception, bad storage, etc. An MFA code is short-lived and can’t simply be reused later, unlike a password.
Keeping the password and MFA secret in the same password manager reduces separation (if someone fully compromises your vault, they will gain access to both factors). But that doesn’t make MFA pointless; it just means it doesn’t protect you against that particular failure mode.
And if someone has full access to your password manager, you already have a much bigger problem.
They are not taking any losses; they just charge the regular price with a very tiny profit margin. US healthcare costs are heavily inflated. Insurance is a scam that lets the rich get richer. All insurance should be non-profit.
We all contribute to the pool at a time when we don't need it so we can use the money when we do, not to make CEOs or stockholders rich. That is how an insurance pool should work. Any excess money at the end of the year should be moved to the pool for the next year, not as a bonus on CEOs' 100m+ salary.
It doesn't matter what they charge if the patient doesn't pay it; which is what often happens with uninsured people showing up at the ER.
> Any excess money at the end of the year should be moved to the pool for the next year, not as a bonus on CEOs' 100m+ salary
Under the ACA, excess money in the pool must be rebated to policy holders. In practice, this worked for a few years, but eventually insurance companies ended up increasing cost in order to increase the absolute amount they were allowed to keep. Maybe this is still good (more claims approved), but it is counter productive to the goal of reducing healthcare costs.
It often happens with insured people showing up at the ER as well. Many patients don't pay their bills, either because they can't afford it or are just deadbeats. As overall healthcare costs have increased, insurers and employers have shifted more costs to plan members through higher deductibles / co-pays / co-insurance. So hospitals end up with a lot more bad debt, and this in turn causes further price inflation.
Carriers and providers don't make this easy, either.
I had a recent doctor's visit, with very good healthcare coverage, that was an in-network facility but an out-of-network provider. Coverage would have kicked in if I had a referral from my PCP, but my PCP recently retired and I was advocating for my own health for a small dermatological issue. They said it was cosmetic, my old PCP said it was not. I got a stack of 10 bills over many months all stating different things -- everything from $0 EOB to over $2k in uncovered expenses. No one would take ownership of sorting out what I was on the hook for. No one I talked to was empowered to actually solve it. It wasn't an affordability problem over $2k (but would be for my elderly grandparents on fixed income). Even asking "If I give you $2k does that resolve the debt?" was answered with "we won't know until we apply the payment" type non-answers.
Burn the whole stack down -or- earn enough you can operate on cash for the tier of care you want. Nothing inbetween seems to be working.
Aren't their profits regulated regardless? If all insurance companies became non profit and let's say total prices dropped by 3-5% that still wouldn't change the situation dramatically?
There are many factors, e.g. amongst other things American doctors are better paid than just about anywhere else in the world.
Yes and no. It's sort of a weird thing where insurance is somewhat regulated nationally but also regulated in a piecemeal fashion state by state.
There's a non-government standards body called the NAIC which provided national guidance for insurers. Most (all?) states basically say that "if you follow NAIC standards, you are good".
> If all insurance companies became non profit and let's say total prices dropped by 3-5% that still wouldn't change the situation dramatically?
It's a huge mess. It's not even really a profit vs non-profit thing but rather "what's the motivation". One major issue is that the ACA put in a loss ratio of 80%. Which isn't a terrible thing in principle, it forces insurance companies to spend money on treatment. The problem is it also means that the profit of insurance companies is tied directly to how much they spend on healthcare. As a result, they are incentivized to spend more, not less, on medical treatments so they can justify higher premiums.
This is a big part of why I think universal public insurance is a must. Basically the only organization that's motivated to keep costs as low as possible is the government.
> American doctors are better paid than just about anywhere else in the world.
This is a problem, but the bigger issue and why doctors are paid so well is because becoming a doctor is one of the more costly and hard to do things in america. There are limited spots, schools, and residency requirements that severely restricts the number of possible doctors we add per year. That drives up the their salaries.
I have a nephew going to medical school in Idaho of all places, and he's looking at $500k in debt by the end of the whole ordeal.
> Basically the only organization that's motivated to keep costs as low as possible is the government.
Unfortunately, this isn't true for the government either.
Source: personal experience of me and literally dozens of people that I know. I've briefly worked with my country's government, and in that time I personally experienced and got dozens of stories along the lines of "the government spent tens of thousands of dollars of aggregate government employees' time because a single employee booked a hotel that was less than one dollar above the approved rate while traveling".
There's a good reason for this, of course: bureaucracies' policies are mostly "scar tissue" from high-profile cases where a bad actor did something they shouldn't have but wasn't specifically against policy, and then a policy was written for that case and stands for the rest of time. And, bureaucracies are risk-averse, especially democratic governments, whose leaders are elected based on optics almost as much as policy.
But it doesn't change the facts. Not only are large bureaucracies inefficient, but government bureaucracies specifically are incentivized to optimize for optics and structure rather than improving that inefficiency, and anyone who has actually worked for a large government can tell you that.
> One major issue is that the ACA put in a loss ratio of 80%. Which isn't a terrible thing in principle, it forces insurance companies to spend money on treatment. The problem is it also means that the profit of insurance companies is tied directly to how much they spend on healthcare. As a result, they are incentivized to spend more, not less, on medical treatments so they can justify higher premiums.
Investors care about margins, not absolute dollar figures. If your non-medical costs are capped, the incentive would be to reduce your other costs to preserve or maximize profits.
So the 80/20 rule is unlikely to have caused anything. More likely it's too low, and the profit ratio that can extracted and passed to investors is still higher than most investing alternatives, which is why it keeps attracting more investment. Without the 80/20 rule we would have seen the same thing or worse, though perhaps slower premium increases but less treatment delivered.
Really this all points to structural problems in the market. Naively we might presume there's not enough competition, and there could be many reasons for that--over regulation, lack of transparency. But it's more complicated than just that because medical treatment, particularly the most costly treatments, presumably have very high price elasticity [citation needed]. Over the long term, investors are just gonna keep trying to draw as much from the well as they can. The problem with public single-payer is that the basic demand curve dynamic doesn't magically change, so rather than complain about high prices people complain about shortages, OR the government just keeps borrowing to maintain satisfactory treatment access until they can't borrow anymore.
Maybe the only solution to rising healthcare costs is to slow down the pace of medical advancements. People love to point out how cheap care is elsewhere, but the most advanced and costly treatments usually become available in the US first, taking years or even decades to spread. (Note, higher prices on pre-existing tech subsidize the cost of bleeding edge treatments, so comparing MRI prices isn't very helpful.) Moreover, people elsewhere don't really know about them so it doesn't detract from their perception of the quality of care they receive. If you're dying and the doctor says there's nothing he can offer you, then that's that and no ill feelings toward the medical establishment. If he says there is something but it's gonna be crazy expensive or there's a shortage/waiting list, now your pissed.
The bigger factor in the American system is taxes. If everyone in the healthcare industry stack, from suppliers to nurses, is exempt from federal and state taxes, healthcare costs could come down by 70%+.
I'm not necessarily opposed to making all health plans non-profit, but that's kind of a red herring. Many of the largest insurers, like most Blue Cross Blue Shield Association members and EmblemHealth, are already non-profit. They generally don't charge plan members any less than their for-profit peers.
Not really accurate if you look at the closure of rural and smaller city healthcare facilities. They don't have the base to charge "regular price" to make up for the aging, less healthy, rural populations.
We all pay for it, but some pay heavier costs than others.
Or it's "normal" market segmentation. OpenRouter users are more price sensitive in general, also a lot of enterprise users who can't switch easily are using the official API (or Bedrock or Azure) and you want to squeeze them as much as you can.
A surprising amount of companies sell exact the same product through different channels for different prices. A good example is Apple.
Multiple times a year, retailers here in Australia have co-ordinated sales on Apple products. Apple.com or their retail stores don't have these sales.
But they're clearly Apple-funded when competing retailers launch the same sales on the same days; and the margins aren't enough for retailers to take a loss.
Seems reasonably clear to me? Potentially bringing in more customers who use OpenRouter for trying out all the models with rapid switching, enticing them to use Sol. And anyone being routed on price will immediately be switched to OpenAI's servers instead.
It also seems to be providing a vastly better user experience - Azure has less than 99% uptime (Azure USA only has 87% uptime), latency of 20 - 30 seconds, and a mere 8 tokens per second. OpenAI is offering 32 tokens per second (4x faster), 4 seconds latency (5x faster), and all for half the price of what Microsoft is charging for a vastly inferior experience.
I think being able to A/B test price is invaluable for them. They can't cut prices by 50% and hike it again. By letting others slash the price, they can tell if it is worth it or not to do this officially.
if I was going to IPO I'd want higher marketshare and openrouter is the most popular way to measure model usage (not saying it's the most accurate b/c it's not)
