ArcHound

As a fun exercise, read the comments in this thread as a justification for removing SWE jobs and getting rid of human development completely in favour of LLMs. As a bonus, imagine you're an executive and you are saving a truckload of money and headaches that come with dealing with people.

> This experience and breadth compounds, but it has to be maintained.

And that's the only reference in this article to this very real problem. How do you maintain your expertise when you stop doing technical work? It'll hold for a while on its own, but then it falls.

But that's a Q1 problem, so no biggie.

That is news to me. This is pretty bleak for a normal person - it's profitable to take an established community, turn it into a propaganda echo chamber, scale down engineering until it kinda works and all that on a whims of a billionaire and it's even profitable.

I guess this is why we can't have nice things.

Good points. Viewing it from the lens of the original business model or mission, it's a disaster.

I don't think it's right, but I can see how a billionaire just completely overrides the company mission and business model after they buy enough shares or something.

Maybe there are other non-obvious use-cases for other companies, where you're effectively buying the user base to then pull the rug.

A lot of the original customers will just accept such a change. See Twitter or GitHub.

True, but there's one very happy shareholder and that's enough. The rest of them are just holding the bag.

I want to agree with you. But I cannot.

The matter of the fact is that most governments and newspapers publish on twitter (now X) still. It also serves the purpose of amplifying Musk to a large audience.

If you wanted to transform a public forum into a right -wing echo chamber, then the transformation is a massive success and the platform continues to achieve all relevant objectives.

Yes, for sure, it's not a serious model. But I've observed exactly this scenario a couple of times, so it tracks well for me.

I'm not surprised. If you have one terrible candidate, in the first round you can vote for whomever you like. In the second round, however, you need to ensure they lose, so you vote for the opposite party, whomever they might be.

I hope username checks out.

Leaving parenting duties to the overall average of the internet bound together by corporate scammers is not something I will ever do.

Oh, the usual: make sure they overhear "my kids would NEVER", look at them with a signature look of superiority, smh literally...

The idea is to send a signal that this is not ok. I have no guarantees on effectiveness. What especially gets me going is when the kid eats and looks at some trash like baby shark while it's blasting loud everywhere.

I think I get what you're saying, but it's really an unfortunate example.

I think it's still better to ban these obviously harmful things and to reduce exposure to them as much as possible.

And how did that approach worked for them?

What bothers me the most is targeting children. I see why we need to make axes or chemicals. But these come with disclaimers and labels as well as common sense that they are harmful.

It's ridiculously hard to restrict all of the harmful content. And frankly, the big tech is less trustworthy by the minute.

I think by having adult devices parents will be more cautious and mindful of what they are granting to their kids.

Parenting is hard. I know it firsthand. I never said zero screen time.

I'm opposed to dedicated devices for children that expose them to the internet.

It's ridiculously hard to restrict all of the harmful content. And frankly, the big tech is less trustworthy by the minute.

Absolutely no cigarettes should be marketed to children. That doesn't mean various cigarette-adjacent products cannot exist.

Honestly, I respect different approaches for disabled kids. Must be very hard, I can't even imagine.

Other than that, movies and games are less destructive than algorithmic feeds, especially short form video. It is preferable to move outside or read a book. But I think we're comparing vegetables to candy to cigarettes.

You are the parent, you can start at the IF. I'm attacking the premise, not the conclusion.

And I do respect the disclaimer, but lately my experience tells me the devil's advocates help the devil (and I'm an atheist!)

I am a dual working parent. It is hard. I am not saying zero screen time.

This is still a terrible idea.

I think it's better to give them a movie rather than an algorithmic feed.

I'm not saying go to zero. But definitely not over 3 hours and definitely not a dedicated device for them.

I don't have data, I don't run a study. Are you saying that shame is an ineffective mechanism of social cohesion?

With my kids, I oversee everything they do (they are under 6). They average 15min daily for two episodes of a kids show.

I'm not saying go to zero. But definitely not over 3 hours and definitely not a dedicated device for them.

Not always. AI is being pushed on plenty of people. Let's just say that not all products serve consumers and there's room for regulation.

Even if I want to buy uranium, I shouldn't. And if I want to buy a chair, I shouldn't be seeing only uranium chairs.

I see your points, and I kind of agree. I'm trying to express outrage.

At one point, everyone has to take responsibility for their own life. If we take the US limit of being underage until 21, then at 42 a person is an adult for the same amount of time. Plenty opportunities to figure it out.

That's no reason to design devices that enable this parent behaviour. We should move in the other direction. Shaming parents who overly rely on giving kids devices for adults can be somewhat effective.

I know there's no hard leverage.

Worse. The adults have to take the responsibility. The children need to learn first what is and isn't right.

If you think this is a good idea, please tell my why, happy to discuss.

I have nothing else to say rn.

Edit: Thank you for all the comments. I'm still happy to discuss. I've calmed down a bit, so my responses will be slightly softer.

Exactly. Especially the backwards compatibility. You can have sheets from decades ago still giving useful results.

You never saw a load-bearing Excel sheet. Like if this formula stops working, there's no payroll.

I'm sorry that happened to you. I tend to agree that the race to the bottom will continue.

And don't worry about my stripes, I'm mostly talking about my hobby self-hosted apps. If anything, should someone hack them I'll have a funny article to post on my blog. Professionally, I do things differently.