> I can do projects in 3 days what would take 6 months.
The hyperbole on this keeps growing every time I see it. Soon we’ll be having people claiming they can do in 12 seconds what used to take them 17 years. What is never presented is proof. People (and programmers are no exception) are notoriously bad at estimating. We already did studies where people thought they were being faster with LLMs when they were in fact being slower.
As companies begin to rehire to fix the mess made by LLMs, it’s clear that just getting something out the door isn’t enough. It never was. Maintenance is an important part of any long-standing system.
That one does sound like hyperbole, or maybe he just works slowly as a human? People are different.
Likewise, I think they're having wildly different results. Look at how differently humans drive vehicles, and realize they're doing the same with compute. Some people probably are working at light speed, and some people are actually slower like in the study.
> Look at how differently humans drive vehicles, and realize they're doing the same with compute.
I’m not sure that comparison is evoking the image you intended. Hands down the best driver I know—the one I’m sure won’t get me car sick, won’t ever have me worrying for my safety, the most fuel efficient, the smoothest rider—is by no means the fastest but the most thoughtful and methodical.
I don’t care how fast you develop your software. Is it good? Is it carefully considered? Will it not bite me in the ass? Those are the things that matter.
that's what I voted for and I'm happy about it. same for every single person in my circle.
you may not understand the other side because of biases but if you just say "oh 50% must be crazy / be stupid" then noone can have an honest debate. but I guess gone are those days.
If you're willing to overlook the corruption, the self dealing, the disrespect for the Constitution and rule of law, and the racism, then I agree. There is no useful discourse to be had with you.
> I'd rather someone be rich before office not have their son work on a Ukrainian oil company while their father is VP that handles relations with said country.
You must be incensed over Jared Kushner's diplomatic roles and $2B investments from the Saudis, then?
He formed an investment group after leaving government. Hunter worked for an oil company (no experience) WHILE his father was overseeing the country relations. And the company he worked for was under investigation for corruption. Joe bragged about getting that prosecutor fired.
Meanwhile Jared got the Abraham Accords and is working on other peace deals.
Hunter was a crackhead being paid in diamonds by a corrupt oil company. Not the same is it?
And Trump's corruption is orders of magnitude worse.
Hunter Biden is not in office, is not running for office. I wouldn't support a campaign from him because "whose crotches were involved in your creation" is not a qualifying factor for much of anything besides assigning a last name.
Trump is in office, and is actively, brazenly corrupt. And you're OK with it for...reasons?
He wasn't, but his dad was at the time. That's the point.
My criticism is not of Hunter, but of Joe Biden. The last D president. The most popular D (by votes) in history.
It's worse for people to entirely to benefit purely based on if their dad is in charge. That's nepotism.
However Kushner is in office, he does work on peace deals in the middle east. He has an official title and does work with many countries and many people. It makes sense for him to make connections over there.
It's not unreal to believe he met people in SA and they all wanted to make a business deal on their own. That's individuals making their own decisions at noone's expense. No demands (like firing a prosecutor). Not quid pro quo.
It's unreal to believe Hunter had any knowledge about Ukrainian oil and being paid in diamonds was legit, plus his business partner outed him. And all while his dad was handling relations with that country, and while he bragged about getting the prosecutor fired that was investigating the company. That's quid pro quo. That's nepotism. That's corruption.
> However Kushner is in office, he does work on peace deals in the middle east. He has an official title and does work with many countries and many people.
Actually, that's part of the problem. Jared Kushner did have a formal government job during Trump's first admin. He does not have one in the 2nd term. He's not even a "special government employee" like they made Musk.
He's a "volunteer" who is then given substantial foreign policy influence in a region where he is also a substantial financial player. And it all happens with him having no formal duty to the United States, no particular rules of the road for what's allowed and what's not, because he's (quite intentionally, IMO) existing in a gray area.
Thankyou for responding with your view, and I'm sorry that you got downvoted for it. I don't agree that "[people] should be able to do literally anything they want and Buyer Beware is a good way to structure society and commerce" because I feel that a degree of safety from bad actors is part of the social contract in a healthy society, and that the strong and capable have a duty to protect and support those less able. I understand, however, that not everyone feels that way and that I'm not entitled to tell them what to think. That's why we vote on stuff, and it mostly works.
I still think that a large percentage of MAGA red hat voters (who don't necessarily represent all GOP voters) have bought into the populist rhetoric rather than actively understanding and supporting the actual policy but I'm sure there are plenty of people like you out there who are actively choosing this.
Maybe it’s never been done properly cause human nature will never allow it to be, e.g. it’s an ideology that’s incompatible with humanity.
But surely there’s a more sane option than under regulated capitalism with a problematic wealth distribution and fucked up incentives that encourage short term profit at the expense of society, environment and all else?
then it's a terrible system to govern humans under.
your system should work with human nature or it will never work.
capitalism exploits greed to generate prosperity. socialism falls under greed.
and no there's not a better solution, or at least it hasn't been found yet. if it was it'd still be a form of capitalism, not the other side of the spectrum.
but we disagree on the effects of the current system. capitalism has not been at the expense of society, the opposite in fact. we've had so much prosperity due to it.
same with the environment really. communist countries don't really have better air quality, worse in fact! US has the money from capitalism to develop clean tech.
I agree with both of y'all: Humans are inherently tribal, greedy, and selfish, and seek to better themselves and their kin at the expense of others.
Communism seeks to mitigate or avoid this human instinct, often failing.
Capitalism throws its hands in the air and says "ok, be greedy and selfish, ignore others and society, and if we're lucky, and it sometimes provides any societal benefit, that's purely incidental and secondary to you making money".
> then it's a terrible system to govern humans under.
Agreed!
> capitalism exploits greed to generate prosperity.
Sadly without representation, that prosperity accumulates around the few that then don’t necessarily disperse it back into the economy but hoard it and lobby against taxes and workers’ rights etc.
From where I stand, both systems suck, just that regulated capitalism is more workable in the more socialist leaning nations from a human welfare perspective, like many of the ones in the EU. Ofc an economic powerhouse that does not make, not necessarily.
And then there’s corruption and various bureaucratic inefficiencies, which you’ll get to some degree in any system.
Communism has never been done properly, because it cannot be done properly.
Communism is an erroneous idea. It starts from a correct premise, that humans who have accumulated much wealth are able to use it abusively for accumulating more and more wealth at the expense of the others, and this positive feedback cannot be stopped without some kind of regulation.
However, the solution proposed by communism is an illusion that cannot work with real humans. The communist solution is to confiscate everything valuable from all citizens and put it under the management of the state bureaucrats, who supposedly will administrate it efficiently and in such a manner as to produce maximum benefits for all citizens.
The reality is that of course the communist bureaucrats are composed of the same people who succeed to become politicians or managers everywhere, i.e. those for whom the priority is to satisfy their own interests and greed, and not the interests of the entire society.
Therefore in all socialist/communist countries, those who were supposed to manage resources in the name of the "entire society" behaved exactly like the owners of those resources, so they lived like US millionaires or even billionaires, while most of the population lived in poverty, because all what their parents or grand-parents had in the past had been confiscated and now they were at the mercy of their managers, who decided unilaterally what they should be allowed to work and what they should receive to be able to live.
The only solution that could work would be the exact opposite of communism. Instead of centralizing everything, the production of at least all the things strictly necessary for living should be as distributed as possible, done by numerous small local companies, not by a few huge global monopolies.
Instead of having 3 producers of memory chips for the entire Earth, there should be at least 3 or 4 in every country. Similarly for any other industrial product.
Unfortunately that is extremely unlikely to happen because during the last decades everything has evolved in the opposite direction.
To continue with the same example, when I was young a large fraction of the European countries were still able to make integrated circuits and computer memories, even many of the East-European countries. But then one-by-one most electronics or computing companies have been bought or closed, until none survived. An important role in the disappearance of the electronics industries in most countries had been that of USA, who used various means of pressure and blackmailing to prevent other countries to enact protectionist measures favoring their internal producers against US companies, i.e. exactly what now USA itself uses against China.
so if it's socialism/communism destroying the environment it's a mistake. but if it's capitalism it's by design?
nothing other than the prosperity that capitalism generates is inherently bad for the environment. yeah if you pull people out of poverty their carbon footprint will probably increase. but the alternative is them living in poverty and starving under a communist system (like always)
the amount of goods and services capitalism has generated has saved so many lives. we have huge amounts of excess food we send across the world.
