Eh. That makes no difference to the progression I'm talking about here. The internet is _already_ click-on-demand so to speak[0]. Software is mostly not yet. But it will soon also be.
[0] - You could replace all hrefs and documents with SPAs that render a pixel stream to canvas and almost nobody would ever notice. After all, the ultimate interface between your computer and your face is pixels (or waveforms), not hypertext.
A small percentage of people have always been the only ones that care about anything technical, it's just a consequence of division of labor. That's why expert opinions used to matter.
Streaming pixels would make archiving it all practically impossible. It would also be the fatal blow in the war against general purpose computing. I'd ask you whose side you're on, but I'm pretty sure I already know.
I'm on the side of being extremely pessimistic about the future viability of making software for a living. This thread is not a moral statement, just an observation and prediction.
And your parent post, with all of its significant edits is an example into why archiving is important.
My greatest moral failing is pressing done before I'm done.
> why archiving is important
Unfortunate things happen all the time. We'll need to find new ways to archive.
> My greatest moral failing is pressing done before I'm done.
> > why archiving is important
> Unfortunate things happen all the time. We'll need to find new ways to archive.
In this case, the unfortunate thing was that you got caught.
You greatest moral failing is that you have no morals, which is why your primary concern is "how will _I_ earn a living tomorrow?"
As for the new ways to archive, I'm certain that LLMs are your proposal, hence my not bothering to ask whose side you're on.
What a weird thing to say. Do you always stick so hard to assumptions about people that are diametrically wrong instead of asking or listening to what they say, or is this a new thing? I guess now we've found your great moral failing too. :/