I'd be opposed to nationalizing Google. There are way too many downsides.
I think, if we're going to be heavy-hitting about this, the more proper thing to do is to force Google to split their search off as a separate, independent company that has additional business requirements imposed on it to rectify the issues.
But I really think that, if search is the worry, the market will eventually achieve its own kind of balance and you'll find an acceptable alternative to Google's that restores much of what has been lost. For me, that's already the case.
You should discuss this with an attorney that is experienced with IP law to see what your options really are. IP law is very complex and sometimes very surprising. You need expert legal advice, not advice from the HN crowd.
As an aside, I thought that "cracked" software meant software that has had the copy protection or other access control bypassed or removed, not the alteration of the software functionality itself. If your software was actually cracked then you may have some fairly heavy law in your favor. For better or worse, bypassing access controls (even weak or simple access controls) gets special legal attention.
Most state bar associations have a free consultation line that will refer you to a reputable lawyer to start with and do basic consultation on where your issue should go and how much it will be. If I had to guess, getting advice is probably $100 and having a lawyer send a letter is $250-500.
If my employer was making something that they believed had more than an infinitesimal chance of destroying the world, but they continued working on it anyway, I'd consider them basically evil and would get out as fast as I could.
> The goal for developers, either alone or in teams, is the same as it ever was ... ship a useful product.
I think this is an oversimplification. It's a variation of the response to the complaint that "devs are just being turned into managers now" with "but they're still making things, and isn't doing that why they became devs?"
I'd argue that, in this scenario, they're not. If I make a product specification and hand that off to another person to make something to that specification, I haven't made that thing, the other person has.
To reduce the job to just shipping things seems like an oversimplification to me because there's a reason why devs chose software engineering as the means of doing that. Why not make something else in a different field entirely? There has to be something about creating software that fulfills needs beyond just shipping.
It's a bit like saying the purpose of company is to generate profit. That's true, but it's so much of an oversimplification as to be misleading. If the point is just profit, why does the company make whatever it is they make, rather than make the thing that is the easiest to maximize profit doing?
It's because there is a lot more to it than just that. Oversimplification distorts reality and makes it difficult to really understand the situation.
> the question is not whether you are okay with it or not, but, rather, how are you going to adapt to the enviroment you inhabit that just changed ?
For a whole lot of people, the question really is whether or not they're OK with it. If they can't be OK with it, then there's no point in adapting to the new environment. It will make them unhappy. Better to escape and find something else that has a chance of being fulfilling.
That said, we're not (yet, anyway) actually in a world where all software development involves outsourcing to genAI. A huge number of software development positions have yet to be changed at all. They aren't really in the silicon valley/forest circles, but they do exist.
AI doesn't care how we feel. Neither do table saws. Both are tools that exist, and we have the option to use them or not. Neither are useful for every task, and if you enjoy playing Minecraft under self imposed restrictive tool usage rules, you can still do that.
If you just enjoy the sheer problem solving dimension of software development, and never intend to ship or use anything, and want to do pure research, go ahead. If its never being shared or released and its just going to die with you, then its by definition "inconsequential" and how you feel about it is your business.
Relocating to a new environment, when the old one no longer suits you, is an adaptation.
From what little I've studied history, it seems emotions run high among the population when truly disruptive technologies have emerged. Some are enthusiastic, some are terrified, some number of workers are displaced, etc etc etc.
Everything changes. Nothing changes.
I proposed to a co-worker 30 years ago the question "I wonder if software will someday write itself ? Like recursion ? A program that writes a program ?"
He burst out in laughter and called me an idiot.
At this point, I can conclude the idea made him anxious, and I'm probably not a complete idiot. V
> AI doesn't care how we feel. Neither do table saws. Both are tools that exist, and we have the option to use them or not.
Of course. That you felt this was necessary to say makes me worry that I've misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying, basically, "suck it up, buttercup". That a dev should be perfectly happy using the new tools because they don't really change the goal. Specifically this line:
> Well, yes, it has, and the question is not whether you are okay with it or not, but, rather, how are you going to adapt to the enviroment you inhabit that just changed ?
My response is that the question absolutely is whether you are OK with it or not. The question of adaptation only becomes relevant once you've decided that you are (or that you are willing to have faith that you will be).
> If you just enjoy the sheer problem solving dimension of software development, and never intend to ship or use anything, and want to do pure research, go ahead.
That's not at all what I was saying. What I was saying is that these things are multidimensional, and to boil them down to just one thing (be it shipping or anything else) oversimplifies and thus distorts the view of developer satisfaction, and to treat it as unidimensional will make it very hard to understand or address any issue of dissatisfaction.
One of the "goals" of being a dev, be it individual or on a team, is indeed to ship a good solution. But that's very far from the only legitimate goal.
> If you’ve let a personal site lapse, or come close, I’d like to hear why.
Not lapsed, exactly, but I took mine off the open web because of genAI crawlers. I don't want to contribute to training, and I couldn't find any reliable way to keep them out, so I didn't really have any other option.
Modern gadgets tend to be rather inferior to older gadgets (and greatly inferior if you value privacy and data security). Keeping the old ones going for as long as possible is a rational thing to do.
> I don't want to scan a QR code and scroll a menu on my phone
I've reached the point where I just refuse to do it. If the restaurant isn't willing to give me a menu, then I leave and don't return. There are other restaurants.
reply