Is it only fat people who pay extra for more personal space on any other form of transport?
I think there's a stronger argument that if you really don't want huge vehicles, you could at least improve ventilation. Air quality and temperature have a massive psychological effect.
Anecdotally, I think most people were fine with a subcompact back in the day because they weren't so airtight and we used to even have crotch vents. So much comfort has been sacrificed over the years because of autistic designer bullshit like "road noise".
It's why you can hop into an old Toyota truck (far smaller than modern SUVs) and instantly feel at ease and grounded. Fits like an old glove and that was always the point. You get improved road awareness and less highway hypnosis. You don't get that nervous system disconnect between your inputs into the car and the feedback. It feels more like an extension of your body and less like a spaceship or coffin on wheels.
After 10 straight hours of freeway driving across Texas, give me a spaceship on wheels with "autistic bullshit" no road noise, please. Or better yet, something that drives itself. Don't get me wrong, I love a spirited jaunt through the mountains on four or two wheels, but the vehicle for that isn't the vehicle to drive in an almost straight line for 10 (or more!) straight hours.
I don't think the vehicle is going to make a difference at that point. You shouldn't be driving so long without a break anyway!
Thanks for demonstrating the attitude that got us here in the first place, though. In your reply, we have an answer for the rest of the world why americans buy SUVs.
Is this just the same tired old SVG turbulence filter people have been using since forever?
Why would I introduce a "left-pad"-like dependency into my UI? I don't want to depend on these half-assed implementations of UI elements. I want my own or those of a better library and to merely have the sketchy style.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. You're spot on.
Almost everyone developing their own AI is doomed to fail. I would not be surprised that when the dust settles, Microsoft CoPilot and Google Gemini will be left standing while OpenAI and Anthropic fade away. They will get what they need and then throw them away.
"Embrace, extend, extinguish" is the same playbook for decades, and you can only do that when you make money. Yes, making money still matters and post-capitalism is a big fat lie.
> Since startups make the best stuff, they're strongest on level playing fields. They're weakest in markets dominated by companies you'd describe as mafia. Record labels are mafia. PBMs are mafia. In these worlds you don't win by having the best product. Indeed you may only even exist for as long as the mafia chooses to allow you to. Which is not to say they can't be defeated. They probably can be, but you'd have to do it by coming in from the side — by somehow making them irrelevant, rather than by frontal attack. Then you wouldn't depend on beating them to succeed; it would be an ancillary benefit of winning in another dimension.
I think this is the strongest point being made here. It so accurately describes the situation in every category of software that it almost makes the rest of the post obsolete advice.
The actual risk from AI is not its "intelligence", but the profound stupidity of the humans connecting it to important infrastructure.
This has got to be the last straw with the anthropomorphization. I swear listening to the pro-AI crowd is like listening to an autistic child babble on and on and on about their way cool robot sketches in their notebooks. These are not adults and there are no robots.
1980's, full local operations. They connect to the internet and use that for updates and operations. Then in close down or minimize their ops center because remote, and replace/reduce people with less skilled cheaper options (guessing here)
It's also worth pointing out how many businesses have always had a dev team that can rapidly prototype regardless of AI usage.
They tend to be the largest businesses (outside of SV) that employ the majority of people in the USA. They are also the least likely to really use AI for much other than copilot in MS Teams.
I have spent the better part of the last decade of my career being approached by executives asking me how to optimize or automate away services that I felt had reached a local optimum. Each time this was the case I would gently express that our options were to commodify, by offering a kind of template, the service or optimize the process and way we gathered information from clients. Without fail, they hated the latter option. It was hard to do, and it implied that any number of people needed to do a lot better at their job in seemingly abstract ways. No, they’d always go for the template, then be dissatisfied by the fact that it’s, well, a template! Finally, they’d go back to begging me for alternatives.
This feels like them doubling down yet again. It’s like looking at your personal finances and trying to optimize it by canceling Netflix instead of acknowledging that you eat out 7 days a week.
Spot on. Generative AI is an amplifier of your current trajectory, and a good side effect of that is that it exposes inefficient internal processes. As a company, it will be increasingly hard to go for the naïve and easy solution (the template) when the blockers are clearly visible.
One of my mantras is:
Automate governance first, creation second. Streamline code reviews and compliance before content generation, or you'll drown in manual oversight.
And this is not what people want to hear, because generating content is easy and automating governance (code reviews, build the domain knowledge into skills and automated processes) is a _real_ and hard engineering problem.
Yes, we could all work a bit more effectively cross-team. It's missing the point to focus on the "what" and the "doing" instead of the "why" and the "planning".
If there are some people who need AI training wheels to help plan, I think that strongly signals some kind of dysfunction. They are rehearsing how to talk to another team? Sounds unprofessional and inexperienced.
LLMs actually raise the bar and resulting demand for experienced workers. Most programmers with more than about 5 years are not the bottleneck. It's all the auxiliary people that are supposed to be coordinating, but don't know their ass from their elbow.
When anyone can buy legal forms from an office supply store or make photocopies from books, why pay for a lawyer and who decides what needs a contract anyway?
That was likely a real question that got some debate in the 20th century only further compounded by the internet by the end of that century. Guess what? We still have lawyers.
reply