gtsop

> Americans like our plush corporate office jobs building intellectual property. We aren't oxen doing physical labor.

> So if we aren't the oxen, who is? Vietnam? And that's morally acceptable?

> Yes. They - or other poor countries - are. And it's their responsibility to grow their citizenry in a neoliberal world.

Here you clearly state that the way for vietnam to stop being oxens is by growing in a neoloberal world. Then:

> China eliminated poverty through neoliberalism. The rest of the world can, too. This is the benefit of neoliberalism

You praise China for growing this neoliberal world, but you forgot that Chineese people are still oxens.

> Do you have some required reading to share here

Lenin's Imperialism

> but bad for economic growth

Yes, it is bad for economic growth, but this is not the tactic of protectionism. It is in the name that the purpose is to protect domestic production. It is done by forcing competition barriers on external producers

> What is the phase called?

Economic crisis / intense rivalry. US is economically threatened by the rise of China, it has been on the radar for many years. Things have reached a point where US can't just sit there and do nothing as China challenges the global status quo.

> What is this amputation and what spreading is it stopping?

The spreading is the slow but ongoing rise of Chinas economic power. The amputation is thr free-trade bariers

You said america worked hard to get rid of manual factory jobs and then you gave the example of China as a state that followed their neoliberal example. But China is the Earths factory and they have hundreds of millions doing manual factory work. You contradicted your own arguments. Not sure what you are asking me right now.

Because we all know there is no amount of factory manual labour going on in China.

Did you even think for a second before writting this?

I wonder why the downvotes. I assume people believe this comment is overly sarcastic... but is it? The absurdity of what the administration is doing automatically makes this comment a legitimate one, and not a troll.

> I find it difficult to sympathize with those who actually perpetrate foreign invasions, be they Russian or American. It’s hard to care about justice for someone whose job and daily practice is to blow up people they’ve never met and never posed a threat to them.

I completely agree, but I feel this is an entierly different topic (no less important). What they did to him is clearly wrong and the importance of this conclusion is to help us think about similar situations in other settings than the US air force. It is like a philosophical dilema, should you punish someone for trying to save their life and causing damage that could have been avoided? Not everyone answers the same.

Again I agree with your angle, it's perfectly valid

He means that he prefers for that poor lad to have died trying to save a piece of metal. Simple stuff, there is no going around it. For some people money is above human life.

Very narrow take, it so far fetched i would consider this a bad faith comment.

How could you possibly consider intensive games to be "simply" web apps? How about network apps like vpns, wifi analyzers? Have you really not come across such apps or are we meant to think every app is a TODO application?

Both web and native has been driven by the same corporate forces, the argument here should be technical only - what can you do on native that you can't on the web. Mixing this technical matter with corporate policies muddies the waters.

I don't think you are tackling (what i believe to be) the main point in this article. Yes we can all agree that replacing SO with chatgpt is very fast and often a better experience.

However, this is not about researching for solutions, it is about offloading your coding capacity to the machine. These are two different things and I think the author is addressing the latter.

If you MUST use a framework, then yes i would go with ember because they have a prooved commitment to following the web standards rather than creating their own custom standards that they throw away the next year.

Having said that, 30 years are very VERY long time in web development. Maybe pure js isn't a bad call, but it depends on how large it is going to be. Someone else mentioned considering sever rendering, not a bad cinsideration either.

This is exactly why I am a huge fan of ember.js

Unfortunatelly it fell behind in popularity mostly due to some unimportant reasons (eg not being able to render 1M rows faster than react) and some important ones (load times), but boy did they build a stable ecosystem! I haven't seen such a commitment to stability and guardrail upgrades to this day on any other piece of front end library.

> They absolutely can gain experience

Not sure where you are getting with this. Yes, literally speaking they can, but what matters is if they actually do, in general, in the real world. My admitedly biassed opinion, based on personaly observating other colleagues, shows that in general, they don't learn and they give up.

Have you noticed an other trend in your circles?

I get what you say but I must insist. Abstractions don't properly surface the underlying causes when they break.

This creates a barier in gaining experience on the topic that matters in order to solve your problem. Let me try to give an example (please don't neat pick, it is just an example):

A front-end dev who has never bundled an app like we did in the old days (manual scripts or manual gulp, grunt, webpack pipelines) but use a off-the-shelf webpack config (lets say CRA) has great trouble understanding why some webpack plugin doesn't work as expected, or they might not even understand how importing an svg into their jsx actually works. Yes this is due to lack of experience, but their current level of working isn't exposing those details directly so they can't gain experience, the waters are way too deep.

My guess is that AI will make programming even more misserable for those who entered the field for the wrong reasons. Now is the time to double down on learning the basics, the low level, the under-the-hood stuff.

> But you don't have to understand lower layers to provide value to your customers, and developers who now find themselves overinvested in low-level knowledge don't want to believe that.

This is the weakest point which breaks your whole argument.

I see it happening ALL the time: newer web developers enter the field from an angle of high abstraction, whenever these abstractions don't work well, then they are completelly unable to proceed. They wouldn't be in that place if they knew the low-level and it DOES prevent them from delivering "value" to their customers.

What is even worse than that, since these developers don't understand exactly why some problen manifests, and the don't even understand exactly what their abstraction trully solves, they wrongly proceed to solve a problem using the wrong (high level) tools.

> Somehow, with the most advanced computer and technological systems to ever be known by man, we're looking to increase working hours and cut benefits, for "profits" that are not quite realized by the labor class

Somehow?? This is capitalism 101. Not a "strange feudal state" nor anything else.

I agree with your intent to introduce the angle of leadership and in particular the CEOs since it is well established that people can't properly evolve and thrive under a leadership that is rotten.

Having said that, there is also something to be said about engineers who consistently cave into management pressure not because of brute force management tactics, but because the engineers themselves haven't spent the effort to build confidence into good engineering practices that will allow them to both fend off pressure and deliver better work. I see people complaining: "oh the company we work for does this, that, the other, irrational things". Yes this is true, but what are you doing about it.

Do you expect higher ups, detached from reality and practice, to drive your working processes in a rational manner? This can only be the exception and we all know it. There are exceptions that proove the rule

Not arguing with what you said (not agreeing either) but i want to add a perspective.

Not all human discussion can happen in forum-like format. Quick disposable chats are also usefull for when you're in a state of "figuring things out" where quick and short feedback help you navigate a problem rather than reading long well-researched well-formatted replies.

There must be room for both modes: the "thinking about it now" is in chat and the "having thought about it" is in SO, forums, documentation etc etc.

Completely misrepresenting what the web was trully about in it's birth: a tool to make distributed information more accessible from a central place. Nothing to do redistribution, or power or anything like that.

It's just that people piggy backed on it

This is only a small part of the story regarding USAs involvement in ukraine. USA heavily reacted to the pro-russian election results and put forth a full on propaganda machine to establish their pro-american government, this was of course to ensure access to ukraine's sweet sweet resources and prevent the Russian expansion of influence and resource access.

Organise a political revolution. Nothing less than that will have an actual impact

The funniest thing about all this is the absurd joke that Trump is compromised by Russia. A clearly populist and baseless propaganda to wash off the cold self-interested policies that America always (obviously) shoved down the throats of it's allies and enemies.

The inability to see how this policy benefits usa (by giving an end to a dead-end spend to a lost war, claim some losses, attempt to not go head to head with russia since china is the biggest fish to deal with right now) is trully laughable.

I know the downvotes are going to come raining, i don't care.

"Mathematically" speaking, i see no reason to say we cannot recreate thought. At least in principle. This means that we may not have the science or technology to do it yet, but it could happen in the future

"we" is another word for "the people building the systems living on the web"

Once, "we" come up with the answer we are going to build based on the newly defined assumptions.

Here is what critically re-examining everything means: Do i really need to have a comment section? And if I do, shall I be the one responsible for managing it's technical infrastructure? The answer could be to use an off-the-shelf solution in your particular story. When you pivot to the side of the off-the-shelf solution developers who actually needs to do the spam filtering, then answers may differ, as will assumptions.

Edit: What are your thoughts of the mechanism hacker news have used to reduce bot comments?

Does the longevity of a single company matter when you"re dealling with billions? He can always jump on the next thing, right?

Terrible for who? Maybe for you (or me), seems to be working out quite great for him.

I think we need to critically re-evaluate what is it exactly we are doing on the internet, how we do it, and examine existing assumptions. For instance, do we really need all services to be centralised? Do we really need services to be "free" (part of the payment is selling your data ok). A server serving static files doesn't care about bot users, but apps... why would you let a stranger use your cpu/ram over the internet? I know i am not providing an answer but i believe we need to take a look again at all of these before we try to come up with an answer

Not sure this curve actually reflects reality even though i understand it's reasoning. Juniors won't know the correct question to ask to the llm

Did you make this HN post using workor?

As with every new (and old for that matter) framework, the first question it needs to answer is not what new it brings to the table, but can you write a 200k line webapp with it that 1) performs well and 2) is not a nightmare to maintain?

That is, does it scale durring development?