3,859 karma · joined June 30, 2012
1) it seems aggressively walled off by login/singup, e.g. one must signup or login just to view the details of a problem.
2) there is a variation of this in the corporate world where “innovation” consultants try to pitch corporate clients on the idea of featuring business problems to a panel of startups. There are a few problems I’ve seen with this model but the most applicable is, people most passionate about a problem set aren’t always the decision makers to procure or fund the solution.
3) have you thought about how to make this a functioning market? It seems like you need to attract builder to work on these problems and subject matter experts to document the problems more deeply than the top level titles.
Python is pretty well known as a data, analytic and machine learning oriented language, and they lean into a more broad characterization.
Perl might be described as dead/dying, and they characterize its development as ongoing.
PHP might be described as a web scripting language, and they characterize it as general purpose and broad.
Swift might be described as an Apple platform a language, and they really want us to know its multi-platform.
AI is already hurting people. We need regulation to hold it and its benefactors accountable. The federal government is preempting states from doing so.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgerwp7rdlvo
https://apnews.com/article/chatbot-ai-lawsuit-suicide-teen-a...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-teen-confided-in-an-ai-c...
https://www.pcmag.com/news/openai-sued-by-7-families-for-all...
https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/chatgpt-murder-suicide-...
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/tens-thousand...
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/17/tech/electricity-bill-price-i...
Um, no. Higher productivity translates to greater return on equity for those that hold it, not necessarily workers.
>Why does technical debt exist? Because requirements weren't properly clarified before work began.
I hate this line of thinking and the expectations that come along with this style of work. The idea that developers need to be spoon fed requirements and only then can they start working because they fundamentally lack an understanding of the desired business outcome and their work output is so valuable that it can’t evolve as their understanding of the problem evolves _is problematic_. To be clear I’m not blaming developers but the style of work that often goes by names like waterfall, agile, SAFE, agile 2.0, transformation, etc. is all hot garbage.
I checked in at a restaurant recently and they asked for my number to text me when our table was ready. As soon as the number finished they had my name and all sorts of info I never gave them. It’s totally out of control.
AI is just a plausible scapegoat that sounds hip.
1. https://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveSupport/HashWithIn...