Lutger

Not really. They still have the same sales tactic as they always have: make an inferior product that barely ticks the boxes, then manipulate everyone to ditch their competitors in all kinds of ways except for making a better product. These manipulative tactics are sometimes fair game, most are quite unethical and some even illegal.

You can make a product that pleases its users, or just cater to the interests of the ones with the buying decision, for enterprise users they are almost never the same. Microsoft, like Oracle, leans heavily on the second strategy. Their developer tools are often (not always) an exception to this principle. I think this is the true reason Microsoft is so disliked as a brand.

You're right of course, it is better without an intermediary. But only if you already are, can or want to use typescript in the backend. If you have good reasons to not do so, then those usually outweigh the cost of having to go through an intermediary codegen step. The tooling is often good enough.

Plus, openapi can be useful for other things as well: generating api documentation for example, mock servers or clients in multiple programming languages.

I'm not disagreeing with you, what is best always depends on context and also on the professional judgement of the one who is making the trade-offs. A certain perspective or even taste always slips into these judgement calls as well, which isn't invalid.

I didn't interpret it as decrying the use of AI. Especially because he plans to dedicate his time and energy into researching the very same AI he rants about, basically promoting its use!

Instead, I see it as a deeply personal rant about the state of affairs which he considers inevitable himself. That is why he leaves the ship.

Before AI slop, there has always been just the agile slop of the bare(ly) minimum product, good enough to woo the ones making a buying decision, or at least until the career sharks have moved on to the next thing. That kind of slop has always been there and everywhere actually. Its called capitalism, or consumerism. The trick is to work for a place that isn't squeezed too hard, because its still in the investment phase or because it just earns money on its own merit.

AI will certainly transform things, just like higher level languages and frameworks have done so. Maybe programming without AI will be the 'micro optimization' of the future: something that is still there and valuable, but only sometimes and only in a certain niche. Slop is eternal, it just has a new face and a new name.

This blog to me is a nice personal rant about a smart young developer coming of age, trying to find his way and guard his ideals or standards against the onslaught of consumerism, just as ambitious young developers always have tried to do.

That is useful, but you can achieve a similar benefit if you manage to spec out your api with openapi, and then generate the typescript api client. A lot of web frameworks make it easy to generate openapi spec from code.

The maintenance burden shifts from hand syncing types, to setting up and maintaining the often quite complex codegen steps. Once you have it configured and working smoothly, it is a nice system and often worth it in my experience.

The biggest benefit is not the productivity increase when creating new types, but the overall reliability and ease of changing stuff around that already exists.

In a way, leading with the core ideas and not with the syntax also shows what this language is about, and selects for people who are more interested in the PL concepts than its looks. After all, syntax is the bikeshed of programming language.

As someone who has seen multiple people close to me, including my wife, struggle with long covid, I can tell you the answer is simply no. Anecdotal, yes, but this shouldn't be an argument.

We are several years in now. These statements are actually pretty hurtful for people who have been through a lot. It's like saying you could beat cancer if you only wanted to, or if you didn't think all those negatives thoughts, you wouldn't be so ill now.

Not only is it suggesting that this misery is in some way 'your own fault', but it also implies that it isn't real, or serious, at least not in the same way other diseases are.

And yes, psychological problems are real too, indeed. But it is not the same. The origin narrative around a disease does in fact matter for people trying to cope with it, and how others see you, for insurance, for politics and medical care. Please be more respectful about it.

Looking at this drama for a bit, I haven't seen anybody advocate for 'canceling' requests itself.

Maybe it's more like: Laplace created awesome things, but let's be fair and also put in his wikipedia page a bit about his political shenanigans.

A lot of of so-called geniuses, especially the self-styled ones with some narcissistic traits, get away with being an asshole. Their admirers have different norms for regular, boring people. I don't think that is fair or healthy for a community.

The fact that every office worker understands excel, does not mean that every office worker understands every excel sheet.

Most of the projects we did in consultancy dev, was turning that one critical excel sheet nobody but 'the excel guy' understands into a simple to use web application, so that everybody could use it and the business won't explode when mr. excel would leave the shop.

Not legitimizing his rants - he is a genuine asshole - but his raging is actually entertaining and more often than not, you'd learn a thing or two.

According to github insights, he contributed 66 lines of code. I mean, it could be really valuable 66 lines, especially if he fixed bugs. Somehow I doubt it.

However, I'd get rid of this 'contributor' asap if I was a maintainer.

New York Times did not got it wrong, the author got the New York Times wrong.

First of all, the NYT article did NOT claim that the central Texas floods are the result of climate change, and for sure it did not claim that there is any evidence for it. In fact, the supposedly left leaning morally indefensible article actually said that: "Hill Country – the part of the state where the Guadalupe River swelled on July 4 – is sometimes called “flash flood alley” for how at risk it is to seemingly out-of-nowhere surges of water."

So the NYT already acknowledges the history of flooding. The main focus of the article is that climate change is increasing the chances of floods 'such as these in Texas' and highlight the importance of NOAA for dealing with its impacts. And it does so by making a sound argument with references to authoritative sources.

Until an attribution study is done you can't say for sure that 'science says' the odds of the Texas floods were increased by climate change. But you can't say it wasn't either. I won't be so annoying to say its morally indefensible, but its definitely incorrect.

Furthermore, the idea that climate change increases extreme weather events is quite defensible and easy to understand, maybe there is even consensus about it among climate scientists. Its not morally wrong to think the Texas floods fit into this pattern, it is actually quite obvious to think they do.

Even better is ... just not breaking the interface, leave the code be.

Add parameters at the end. Or just add a new function. Or even a new module if things get too messy for your liking.

Just leave the old users in peace. If you are worried about breaking stuff, it means people are using the function you wrote and find value in it. Why change it at all? I think it is very rare that the reasons for breaking are so compelling that they are worth the trouble.

Wait, what? Is this a joke? Did they really rebrand Office to '365 Copilot app'? I feel like I'm missing the plot, they can't be serious.

Maybe teenagers still do that, but I feel there are no real shiny new features anymore. I've upgraded my broken 5 year old phone and sure enough, the photos it takes are better and its a bit smoother overall, but otherwise I don't see a truly major improvement.

Major innovations (from the user pov) are happening mostly in software these days, not in hardware.

So I don't see how a little bit of regulation keeping hardware alive a little longer is political handwaving at all. It doesn't matter if any 'deep and complex issues' are not addressed, whatever they are, its still a valid improvement over the status quo, however small. Yes, mandating 5 years of security updates isn't going to solve climate change or fix the economy, but it would extend the safe lifetime of most mid range phone by around two years and for the vast majority of users, that will be just fine.

I know it is not that interesting to talk about small improvements, but a lot of politics is exactly about that: improving society with many thousands of very marginal steps. They are not a distraction, they are the work.

I'm not a conservative, but this kind of pragmatism is what I feel used to be the true value of old school conservative politics, and it is deeply lacking its current form. Conservatism needs to be boring again.

I was wondering why it took so long for the enshittification to commence in earnest. It already slowly started, with various social media features nobody asked for, but now it is official: whatsapp is dead.

Especially given that Trump already helped so many people move away from Meta, I see the whatsapp monopoly coming to an end pretty soon.

I don't see how one necessarily leads to the other. There's obviously already filtering going on in youtube, even before covid, on illegal content and also on legal content that is against the policy (adult content for example).

How is Covid desinfo during the pandemic suddenly a slippery slope for anti-competitive measures, while all the other moderation measures aren't? Whats so special about anti covid desinfo rules?

I think we really need a better argument than 'making any rule leads to making bad rules, so we better have no rules'.

Between "no" and "yes sure" also lie 50 shades of "is this what you meant?". For example, this older guy asked me to create a webpage where people could "download the database". He meant a very limited csv export of course. I an wondering if chatgpt would have understood his prompts, and this was one of the more obvious ones to me.

Absolutely. Any public institution or governmental body needs to rethink their fragile reliance on technology from countries they can longer trust. This applies to China, but the US is even more unpredictable.

The extra step is to open the text file in an editor, except in this case the editor is called Obsidian.

Granted, you do have to install it versus using the default editor that comes with your operating system, so that is an extra step. But most people don't use the builtin editors from their OS anyway.

It doesn't, but the sentence referred to wasn't really aimed at them. I mean, Mozilla could ditch its engine and adopt chromium in order to really focus on advertising, and then it would also support said features from an end users perspective! Somehow I have a feeling that won't earn Mozilla praise.

For all its flaws, Mozilla is actually the ONLY other company building a browser engine. When its gone, there will basically be only one left.

I'm with you. Yet I've always understood 'move fast and break things' to mean that there is value in shipping stuff to production that is hard to obtain just sitting in the safe and relatively simple corner of your local development environment, polishing up things for eternity without any external feedback whatsoever, months or even years, and then doing a big drop. That's completely orthogonal to things like planning, testing, quality, taking time to think etc.

Maybe the fact that this is how I understood that motto is in itself telling.

So its rather that AI amplifies the already existing short-term incentives, increasing the harder to attribute and easier to ignore long-term costs.

The one actual major downside to AI is that PM and higher are now looking for problems to solve with it. I haven't really seen this before a lot with technology, except when cloud first became a thing and maybe sometimes with Microsoft products.

That's interesting. Aren't there examples in nature where a species essentially destroys itself? There are many on the population level. Plants often do this, its called succession.

There's a layer to this, where natural also implies good and unnatural implies bad. For example, plastic is bad because it is unnatural, but arguing it is natural after all somehow makes it good (that is the rhetoric I believe). This depends on the notion of a 'natural order', whether that is some vague concept of 'the universe' or of God himself. Anything against that order is bad and unnatural. Humans are part of that order.

Of course, that is very pre-modern idea. I believe what comes close to a useful definition of natural would be something like 'emergent' or 'spontaneous', as opposed to deliberately designed. Its a quality you could also ascribe to, for example, cities or software systems. You don't need the human/nature split for it to be useful. It is not exactly capturing what people think of as natural, but then again we also do not believe in God anymore - by and large. At least not in the way we used to.

There are several competing, and sometimes complementary perspectives on what 'nature' means. Some include humans and their activity within it, others do not.

One thing you can ask yourself: if human activity and the impact it has on its environment is included in what you call 'natural', then what even does remain of the word 'unnatural'? What do people refer to, when they use that word? If you don't have any sensible explanation for it, then the whole thing collapses, yet evidently a lot of people really want to keep using the word nature and even seem to have no problem in making themselves understood when doing so.

Did you ever work with developers? Maybe if you hire for consultants in some industries some of this is relevant (I doubt it), but with social skills + suit part alone will make sure you miss out on a significant pool of talent.

I could even go further and say that NOT hiring anyone who shows up in a suit will give you better results than the other way around. You filter out a lot of career guys who are really poor programmers and will try to end up as mediocre middle management that way.

Nice. Advertisements is one of the first things I studied seriously, when still in high school almost thirty years ago. I remember arriving at the very same conclusion, even though Big (AD) Tech had yet to arrive. Any hypothetical rational and enlightened society in the future - think Star Trek - would of course not have any advertisement. It just doesn't make sense. It is a compromise, an evolutionary transition, like fascism, human sacrifices or settling conflicts with a duel of pistols.

If we - as in humanity - are still there in 500 to 1000 years, advertisement may be taught in a history class as one of the barbaric practices of the 21th century. Maybe some scholars will be able to relate it to world hunger, climate change and genocide with a mathematical precision that we are not yet capable of. That is a timeline I love to think about.

Of course, slaving away in the asteroid mines for Bezos inc., looking at hyper sexualized ads for a trip to Mars is equally likely.

Training is another cash cow from big tech, on many levels. It is a bonus for resellers and partners, binding the ecosystem together. And the maze of certifications that expire every other year or so makes big tech corps even more money, and has everybody invested. It is also a useful sales tool, because they don't cost much and can be thrown in as a discount. You can also achieve a kind of vendor lock in on the career skills more easily with certifications. Legions of Microsoft technicians are pretty much stuck in the ecosystem, because if they switch their certs and experience don't mean anything anymore. Not everybody has the technical chops to switch ecosystem every year. Even more pressure to not move to open source (or another vendor).

If you think Microsoft makes it sales because its buyers are putting the right product in the right place, then you haven't seen a lot of Microsoft sales. This is absolutely not how it works. And it doesn't have a lot to do with corruption either.

The people making the decision to buy an IT product are often not its users, and often not that much concerned with making the best short/mid/long term deal in the interest of the business. They are very much concerned in making the best deal for their own careers, and as these are the people who buy the thing some companies have competently specialized in optimizing sales given that fact. Oracle has a reputation for this, and Microsoft as well, but all big tech does it (just some do it better than others). Of course, there's some nuance, you can't get away with it if your product doesn't work.

You don't have to store things in a database to do this. Code is almost almost read from disk into some kind of in memory data structure that is amenable to such analysis, maybe even more so than a generic database. Doesn't matter if you use vscode or vim, most developers have some kind of tool that does semantic analysis and which affords navigation and organization of code.

Its just that the main way code editors present navigation follows the path hierarchy, also because its often intimately tied to how programming languages shape modules. Most editors have at least some alternative navigation however, and most people are using at least some of them: outlining by declaration symbols, search, changes, unittests, open files, bookmarks, etc.

So in a way, this is already how it is done, except the 'database' part is really tied to the code editor and its storage component nicely decoupled (in the end, databases are usually also just a bunch of files).

I think any real improvements on this model can only come from a new programming language design, and as others have pointed out, this hasn't caught on in the past. The reason for this is probably not that file oriented modularity is the best thing there is, but rather the escape velocity needed to get out of the vast ecosystem of tooling around files, like the OS, git and existing code editors and whatnot.

Exactly. The rich don't actively avoid air pollution, not really.

A very significant and underestimated source of pollution is burning of wood. BBQ, fireplaces and stove, even expensive modern 'ecodesign' heating solutions that burn wood: these all cause massive and dangerous air pollution. And it is often, in my country at least, somewhat of a luxury thing. As soon as you get out of the poorest of area's, you smell the burning of wood which can cause more than 50 percent of total pollution locally, even rivaling the effects of smoking.

It is very good example of political framing. It evokes the thought of tax as a punishment for dying, and its collection as a kind of harassment of the bereaved. So tax bad, case closed, no discussion.

But of course, it is not death and loss that it taxed, it is rather the accumulated wealth being redistributed over both society at large and the heirs, in some kind of ratio. In favor of inheritance tax: the wealth somebody amassed has also been thanks to its participation in society, so it is only fair some portion of it goes back to society. The heirs played no part in it, so why should they get any, let alone all of it? Furthermore, inheriting wealth goes against the idea of meritocracy, and maintains inequality in an unfair way in modern societies. Why should inheritance tax not be 100%?

Children often grow attached to the 'stuff' their parents have collected, be it things or land, houses or money. It seems unfair to take it all away from them, as they feel they already 'own it' merely by being their children. So inheritance tax is some kind of compromise.

However, as each generation these days tend to fully 'break' with their parents, in a way (economically, spiritually), inheritance itself seems more and more like a thing of our tribal pasts. I imagine a future where there is no inheritance tax anymore, because the whole concept of inheritance will go away.