When I started using emacs it already felt past well-established and perhaps past its prime. Decades later it feels perhaps more relevant than it did the then. The easier-access defaults kits of the mid-2010s got a lot of new user investment, and it feels like the community really ticked up around COVID. Yes, agentic development has us spending a lot of time in harnesses; relevance-wise, things that aren’t an editor feel more threatening than alternative editors. We’ll see how that lands over time! Most of the reason I use a harness outside Emacs is to take advantage of a Claude subscription.
Technological progress is multifaceted. Some of it is more value-neutral and tends to be a general accelerant.
In terms of social effect, there's two axes that jump out at me for things that are _not_ value-neutral:
- technology of violence, where the axis is whether it makes it easier or harder for some people to have direct power over others, and
- centralization/decentralization technologies.
I think there's a decent argument to be made that the former category is mostly a subset of the latter anyway.
In a _very_ hand-wavey, un-nuanced take, decentralized systems shift power and profit away from the establishment and are inconvenient to use, and centralized systems tend to be easier to use -- and they support and create establishments, and give them power and profit. Unsurprisingly, a fair number of establishments exist and grow precisely because they found a way to centralize a decentralized technology.
The choices that we make in our lived systems mean these axes are mere tendencies, not predictions. The "old" Internet was largely a decentralization technology. The shift towards platforms (Facebook, Xitter...) made many of the old-internet functionality easier to use by centralizing it. Blockchain is superficially and deliberately a decentralizing technology, but with the choices we've made, it's mostly empowered people positioned to centralize it (initially in the form of fiat currency exchange points).
LLM progress is currently in a centralizing phase, but overall its direction remains unclear; will open-weight models running on cheap commodity hardware (once OpenAI won't or can't clear the aisles of available VRAM) turn the tide, or will the frontier labs retain a permanent structural advantage -- and what market and regulatory choices will we make to nudge that direction?
The descriptor that I ran across the other day that kinda lumps this all together: the internet is a store. Some of us remember that it used to be a library.
Yes that's good. I recently told someone going on Facebook was like standing in the check out aisle at Walmart and forced to look at all the old celeb gossip mags and conspiracy tabloids from the pre-internet era. A lot of what seems like everyone getting dumber is partially just people who normally would have avoided that stuff getting it put in their face too.
In total fairness, a Denhac membership is basically signing up to be nerd-sniped for live entertainment. (Denhac is wonderful and I wish I made it over more often.)
This is why it's virtually impossible right now to hire (a billion fake/BS applicants) _and_ to find a job (good luck standing out in aforementioned flood, _plus_ there's AI spammed posts that aren't even for real jobs), or to connect with someone via cold email (swamped).
The US political "flood the zone" strategy is being applied to anything an agent can interact with.
The regulatory overhead to grid-connect is a _significant_ portion of the price, both for the actual paperwork labor and because of the premium it imposes on the system components (you can't use inexpensive non-UL-listed panels)
Only some states allow simple plug in roof top or balcony solar I believe. So depending on your area you might be required to do a grid hookup and lose access to it during outages.
Nevada has started allowing it, and other states are starting to allow it in Jan 2027. However, these all rely on equipment that meets standards that equipment is not yet certified for (UL 3700). It's a bit of a waiting game in the US right now.
This might be (unintentionally?) part of the reason for the original subject: how many jobs does the Avengers IP pipeline support? How about for a single artifact output by it--one TV show, for example?
And how many people work on a well-loved indie artifact of about the same market position?
Gonna guess the latter supports way fewer jobs. (This isn't meant as a judgment in taste or moralizing--my own entertainment tastes run indie towards pretentious, so economically I'm part of the problem.)
Sometimes I wonder about efficiency part. How efficient these big budget titles are? How much many man hours spend of them are actually waste? It does get to back to whole broken window thing. Demand was generate but was it usefully spend? Indie is most likely doing whole thing in much more efficient way. With slightly different product but still often something acceptable.
Is more jobs better than less jobs? Or does this apply to only certain things?
Another issue is that the avengers is just sucking up money that would have been invested in different IP than Stan Lee's comic books. All that money would have been spent either way, just a question of if we wanted to see one of the most sophisticated rendering farms ever constructed grind on Thanos's chin wrinkles or maybe some other projects.
I am mostly in agreement. And I suspect there are many folks that’re trying to ship something AI-assisted that’s sufficient to get to income security first, and who would use success there as a stepping stone to greater things.
The problem is, why even produce something greater now when someone is just going to clone it with AI? And moreover, what differentiates software now will no longer be the care put into it but marketing and trends. The highly commercialized nature of software means that there's not much point now in doing anything except getting there first and exiting with a decent nest egg.
> And moreover, what differentiates software now will no longer be the care put into it but marketing and trends. The highly commercialized nature of software means that there's not much point now in doing anything except getting there first and exiting with a decent nest egg.
That happened at least 20 years ago. How many recent "this product did so great because of the care of software engineering, and now the creator is comfortable for the rest of their life without risk of it being copied" success stories are there compared to "this product chased some trends VCs were nuts about with a slapdash MVP and the founders took out 8 figures from their later fundraising rounds, but then the business sputtered out"?
I think there's an angle with AI tools where business-minded people will have a better chance of doing interesting things now than in the recent past, because you could potentially tailor much more deeply to individual customers with reasonable economics than in the past. There are fields where there's room for a garden of solutions from different small-team vendors appropriate for different use cases instead of a one-size-fits-all SaaS winner-take-all type market in the past. We could kill the old line about SAP around needing to change your business to accommodate SAP instead of customize SAP to accommodate your existing workflow.
But if you aren't business-minded at all there are likely less places that will need to hire as many careful maintainers or novel-software-writers, which obviously is a huge kick in the teeth to a lot of people.
It seems to me that you are comparing two kinds of business-minded people. Some want to sell tailored products to individual customers, while others want to sell one-size-fits-all products to many customers.
You could also focus on problems. What are the actual problems you want to solve? Can you use software to solve them? Do you still need to buy that software from other companies, or is it now feasible to have sufficient in-house expertise to develop it yourself?
I love solving problems. But I don't enjoy sharing my solutions with the way the world is today. My comment was directed towards the "sharing" aspect, not the making aspect. I still solve problems on my own and learn on my own but I'm not a fan of the way the world has become.
UBI or a living wage for part-time workers in-line with what was expected would be possible from productivity gains over the past half-century would do that. You just have to get the "hard workers" who are happy to race to the bottom on their way to the top, and undercut/throw under the bus everyone else in the process.
Can we please, for once, stop trying to figure out how to "get ahead" of each other, and instead figure out how to build a decent and dignified floor for as many people as possible? Because I imagine that, "Ultimate power in the hands of anyone with enough VRAM to run GTAVI," works better when people are in a culture of looking out for each other, versus a culture of clawing their way to one of the limited lifeboat spots (under the mistaken impression that there ARE lifeboats, when, again, everyone potentially has the power to blow up the lifeboats).
You asked me to respond to more than just the UBI concept raised.
I 100% agree people need a culture of looking out for each other. I'd argue that has only successfully happened sustainably in smaller communities, and from the bottom up rather than the top down.
Take care of your neighbors, and ask them for help when you need it. You aren't proposing this here so I'm not arguing with you, but it never works for long when the "help" comes from the top down. For a short period we may actually see the government take resources from some to help others, but eventually that is corrupted and they stop at the point of taking resources and power.
A UBI will never work, the Soviets tried effectively that and it fails miserably.
You end up with the government deciding how much bread each person needs, how much the bread will cost, how much to pay a person so they can pay the defined price for the allocated amount of bread, etc.
Either utopian claims of an AI and robot-powered future are right and we don't need money because you can just have what you want, or money and resources will still be scarce and we will continue to compete amongst ourselves for resources.
2) America in 2026 is not the USSR in the 20th century, so even if they did, our circumstances are very different from theirs.
3) UBI was only the first suggestion; you completely failed to address the other and then jumped to a black-and-white conclusion.
The general thrust of my proposition was that people shouldn't have to submit to an artificial system of manufactured competition and unnecessary "productivity" in order to access goods that are objectively abundant. When people realize that and make the necessary compromises, they won't have to worry about shipping useless AI-assisted slop for "income security" and can focus on using AI to build consequential and useful software.
Please do not get bogged down in whatever kneejerk anti-UBI thought-loop your misaligned amygdala is screaming at you.
1) you'd have to expand on your refutation here. The soviets absolutely did decide top down how much bread each person deserved and how much it cost. They used that type of data to help decide how much grain to have farmers grow, where and when to ship it for bread production, and in part how much to pay people so they could buy their allocation of bread. Not directly a UBI, but functionally very similar with the caveat being they forced people to work in predefined jobs for a set pay rate.
2) I didn't say the US is the USSR. I pointed to a clear example where a UBI-like structure was tried and failed. Feel free to call out specific differences that may help it work better today in the US, I'm genuinely curious despite my skeptism.
3) I can respond to the others as well, but that isn't necessary to have an interesting debate or discussion on any one topic. If one was required to respond to all raised ideas they could try to shut down all conversation by threading together a long list of hard to discuss topics, avoiding responses to any one topic.
I do agree people can avoid having to submit to AI or ML systems though. We ultimately all make our decisions, some more impactful than others, and if we end up in a dystopian future with no jobs and AIs/robots in charge of the world we made that bed for ourselves.
I'm not bogged down in any kneejerk reactions and I'm not parroting what I've heard air bags saying elsewhere. I've read up on the topic, the history of the USSR, and read Marx writings (well the translations, I speak some Dutch but no German). We may disagree, but my views aren't uneducated reactions.
1) You are describing something that is not UBI, and calling it UBI anyway. A rationing system that is not fungible and that varies allocation is not universal, and not income as capitalism knows it. The Soviet planned economy was categorically not UBI. Full stop.
2) >I pointed to a clear example where a UBI-like structure was tried and failed.
You did not.
3) That's not applicable here. Why did you respond to the UBI issue only?
>I do agree people can avoid having to submit to AI or ML systems though.
I didn't speak to this at all. The "artificial system of manufactured competition and unnecessary 'productivity'" is independent of AI and ML and has existed for several decades.
>my views aren't uneducated reactions.
See 1.
My conclusion is that you actually aren't interested in a conversation. You haven't responded earnestly or considerately to anything in my initial post except the portion suggesting UBI, which you dismissed with a faulty presence.
Here is my suggestion: talk about something else from that post. Anything else. Do not revisit the UBI topic.
The only reason the Soviets didn't have a true UBI is because they realised they still needed people to work and they wouldn't if you gave them what they needed for free. That's why I said they had what was effectively a UBI, they decided what people needed or were entitled to and created a system that would give them only that. The fact that they forced people to work is an implementation detail that we'd likely run into in the US today as well, we couldn't afford for the government to cut checks and no one work.
I did respond earnestly, whether you accept it or if I'm explaining myself poorly. You have yet to propose how a UBI would actually work, or pointed to an example of it ever having worked in the past. Socialism and Marxism have been tried, the don't work. And yes, UBI is an idea that goes back to Marx's writings.
Identify theft/identity fraud is a bullshit risk-shifting move by the banking class.
The actual crime is classic fraud and it's directed at the banks and financiers. By inventing "identify theft", the financial sector shifts responsibility and financial consequences from themselves to the uninvolved, innocent, and frequently totally unaware individuals that fraudsters represent themselves to be.
With this system in place, instead of then requiring that banks spend the resources to verify who they believe they're doing business with (or else risk being defrauded), we have "credit monitoring" and "identity security" services and individuals being held financially and criminally liable for crimes they're often so uninvolved in they _literally don't know they happened_.
reply