lp4v4n

I was going to comment exactly this.

I think they are predicting that free-software projects are in freefall and no longer attract good people.

I recall reading a Linus Torvalds interview in which he said that Git's killer feature was its current maintainer.

It sounds like a realization that you can only leech off the host so much, and once your host is dead, there is nobody else to leech from.

>These are not, in fact, physically sub 1 nm, despite the bombastic claims.

Why? What's their real size?

Not doubting you, just trying to understand and also trying to assess how exaggerated the marketing is.

Technology got weaponized against the average citizen.

It has become a synonym for unemployment, enshittification, mass surveillance and social erosion.

The whole leadership of the AI industry, with almost no exceptions, sounds like a bunch of psychopaths who have no qualms about lying and get off on the idea of a populace being oppressed and demoralized by their companies.

Dijkstra passed away in 2002, sometimes I wonder what he would write nowadays given that the world took the opposite direction of everything he deemed as correct in software development.

He is just being solipsistic and talking to a small circle of wealthy and well-connected Gen Zs that he probably knows in real life or who are part of his acquaintances. Or do you really think that people with his level of wealth remotely care about real career paths for the average youth?

>The popular image of a denial is an insurer overruling a doctor on whether a treatment is needed. That is the exception. Only about 5% of denied in-network claims were turned down because the care was deemed not medically necessary. The rest were administrative, for an excluded service, for a missing referral or prior authorization, or for a reason the insurer never specified.

When an insurance company denies a health claim overruling a doctor, it can be necessarily concluded that either:

1. somehow the company knows more about the patient's condition and the doctor is wrong

2. the doctor is defrauding the system and the insurance company caught the doctor cheating

3. the company is defrauding its clients.

There is no middle ground honestly, and yet "5% of denied in-network claims were turned down because the care was deemed not medically necessary".

This is absolutely crazy and evil. I would expect a few thousand cases annually and probably for million of cases you get denied what you pay for because "we detected your doctor is wrong and we're not paying".

>In fact the single largest category, 36% of denials, was an unexplained "other." A system that rejects tens of millions of claims a year and files more than 1/3 of those rejections under no stated reason is hard for an outsider, or a member, to audit.

I can't even imagine getting lifesaving care denied because of "other". I didn't know things were so grim in the USA and honestly now I'm kinda surprised that more people are not getting "Luigi'd".

At this point I honestly think this is a bit by design.

There is a crazy amount of land in the world, but either it's too expensive or you're not allowed to build over it, or a combination of both. Houses have been built for millennia but somehow in the most advanced period of humanity you're supposed to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a roof over your head.

I think that low key the ruling class + landlords are not interested that housing be an affordable thing, so the whole system works to create artificial scarcity. How's the population going to be forced to work unpleasant and low paid jobs if not by controlling their access to housing? You have to be too naive if you think that a few minds in your country's parliament haven't thought of this.

If someday economic activity gets automated enough, and the majority of people are not needed anymore for regular jobs, and this populace gets violent with their ruling class, then I think a lot of housing will be built outside of cities, and the supply of houses will no longer be a problem.

As someone who lives in Europe, my impression is that the continent's first priority is how to keep paying the fat pensions it pays to its retired class, the second priority is how to keep paying the pensions followed by a distant third about how to keep paying the pensions.

For me it's remarkable how the continent lives looking at the past and not at the future. The older people I talk to show no concern about Europe's economic future, they're always dismissive about the problems Europe faces. They're stuck in the 70's, 80's or 90's it seems.

Honestly it's not surprising that AI provided answers that were flagged less often as "pedagogically harmful" if we take in account that somehow LLMs create an "average" of all knowledge they ingested.

I think the battle linux vs windows showcases how, in the long run, free software tends to win. In 50+ years, windows will be a footnote in the history of technology, in 100+ years, linux will still be going strong as a multi-generational human endeavor started by a young nerd in the early 90's.

I don't agree with this. Addictive, unless we're talking about a chemical substance or something like that, is a subjective thing. At some point, books, movies, comics, etc, etc might have been considered addictive.

Social networks in general should be banned for underage people, that's the thing. And the social network itself should be liable for verifying the age its users, like a nightclub is liable for people who enter it. No bullshit operating system age verification, that's, trust me, totally intended to protect kids and not to spy on you.

What kind of speculation exists over energy, water and space? I'm really curious to know.

I'm curious to check how faster AAA games will hit the market in the next years compared to the pre-LLM era. Or how much of the aging COBOL code base out there will disappear in the next decade.

When concrete things like that start to happen, then I will start to believe in the 10x claim.

As true as "It's free and always will be".

When a company hires for an entry level public facing position, they always mean a young individual with a welcoming smile instead of a bald middle aged man who has been unemployed for two years. That's something that everybody knows and even the most progressive HR department, overtly or tacitly, will try to enforce. Society is full of small hidden prejudices that people don't really see as harmful.

Global warming doesn't exist.

If it does, it's not that bad.

If it gets bad, it's not a big deal in reality.

If it becomes a big deal, it was not humanity's fault.

And if it was humanity's fault, at least the planet was saved from a global dictatorship run by scientists.

>I am not trying to be snarky; I used to think that intelligence was intrinsically tied to or perhaps identical with language

I learned a long time ago that this wasn’t the case.

I can speak several languages, and many times when I remember something and want to search for it on Google or any other AI engine, I can’t recall which language I originally read it in.

So whatever mechanism the brain uses to store information, it’s certainly language‑agnostic. There are also many moments when you fully grasp a concept but forget the words to describe it, yet the concept itself remains clear in your mind.

It's very hard to think they wouldn't do something harmful to children again if the economic incentives aligned. For corporations it's just so easy to say sorry, and in the worst case they know an irrelevant fine will be placed in order not "to destroy the business".

Society is getting materialistic and cynical to toxic levels as the standards of living and the perspective of future further deteriorate.

People feel overworked, tired and out of money.

This general malaise spills on almost every type of social interaction, including friendships unfortunately.

A few years ago, the "tinfoil hat crowd" had this absurd claim that Ghislaine Maxwell was a reddit powermod:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/incoherent-conspiracy-sugges...

The article above is from 2020, and later the FBI itself used the user maxwellhill as evidence in Ghislaine's investigation:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/comments/1qsf6y6/reddit_pos...

But my point is: have we really reached a technological level where we can use neurons like replaceable car parts? That video seems to suggest yes, but I’m still skeptical.

My impression is that this company is offering a product that’s still beyond our technological capabilities, much like the cold‑fusion startups that pop up from time to time.

Maybe I wasn’t explicit about this point, but I’m not only talking about understanding the biological processes behind a neuron. I’m also talking about our ability to manipulate them in something like an industrial process, combining them with hardware in a controlled way and achieving reliable results.

Cells have a metabolism, right? They need to be fed and require a specific environment to survive. They age and can die, and they can be attacked by other microorganisms. Are all of these problems solved and applicable on an industrial scale? I had no idea.

Why aren’t we fixing people’s retinas and paraplegia if we can manipulate neurons with that level of precision?

It’s the first time I’ve heard about this company, and of course I haven’t taken the time to check how real their product is, but honestly, for me it’s very difficult to believe we currently have the technology to correctly integrate a living neuron into a chip, let alone compute anything meaningful with it.

From what I’ve read elsewhere, our understanding of neurons is still very basic, and we need a lot more fundamental research before reaching results like these. We still don’t even properly know how migraines work, nor can we cure paraplegia, yet somehow we supposedly have the capacity to grow second brains and program them on top of that.

>The median salary for a urologist in the United States is approximately $590,000 per year as of March 2026. Most urologists earn between $550,000 and $630,000 annually.

This guy really thinks doctors make 120k/year.

>1. As President Eisenhower said in his farewell address in 1961 [1], every dollar spent on the military-industrial complex is a dollar not spent on schools or houses or hospitals or bridges;

This humanist view unfortunately doesn’t hold anymore in the modern world. Boomers will be happy as long as not a single dollar is spent on housing, so that their own homes can appreciate in value. Republicans would rather burn money than spend it on houses, hospitals, or bridges that might benefit immigrants or “other people” more than themselves.

I used an American political party only as a reference, but the same phenomenon can be seen in many countries around the world. Society has become incredibly cynical and has regressed a lot in terms of humanity.

>Block said Thursday it’s laying off more than 4,000 employees, or about half of its headcount. The stock skyrocketed more than 24% in extended trading.

Society provides support to this kind of decision, it's obvious why it happens.

And nobody really believes this whole "we got too efficient" so now we don't need 40% of our company anymore.

What about "It's free and always will be"?

As you said, it's impossible to determine how many of the current layoffs are caused by AI, they probably also have a lot to do with the broader economic downturn. But you’re still missing the point, if companies truly have a black box that can produce cheap, high‑quality code as the GP put it, why don't they just fire 95% of their developers and keep only a small core of AI orchestrators?

So code was apparently cheap, but in fact it was expensive because it was low quality.

Now with LLMs, code is cheap and it also has quality, therefore "quality code can be had in the cheap".

Do you really believe this is the case? Why don't companies fire all their developers if they can have an algorithm that can output cheap and quality code?

>The EU has had 20 years to create an equally successful and popular product, which it failed to do. American companies don’t owe your European nationalist ambitions a dime. Use their products at your own discretion.

I can see not everybody here will agree with me, but I find this take absolutely reasonable. The European space has the capacity and the resources to create a product that replaces something as trivial as Linkedin, and yet it takes the lazy approach of just using American products.

It's the same thing with China's manufactured products, at some point the rest of the world just accepted that everything gets done in China and then keep complaining about how abusive China can be.

The most recent issue is the military question. Europe relied for decades on the "cheap" protection of the USA. Now the USA gave the middle finger to Europe and Europe acts shocked, but Europe is not so shocked when it comes to the military budget it did not spend on self defense during all the time the Americans provided protection.