Inflation is a tax on savings. Yeah I'm against almost all taxation, the amount I pay a month is more than most people monthly salaries in my country and I just don't think I get the level of society back from it to justify me being rinsed this much.
I'm not sure why taking away money you could spend on goods or put into savings is ok when your boss does it, but not ok when the government does it. At least the government builds you a road in return.
Right, that's my point, unless you can work at a co-op, you have no say in how much value from your labor is extracted and given to someone else, and given the way society is designed, it's basically impossible to live without nonconsensually giving up the majority of your labor's value to someone else.
Whereas with taxes, if you don't like them, you can elect a different politician. Look at the Americans, they do it all the time, their tax rates go all over the place.
I want roads, libraries, firetrucks, and for my poop to vanish into oblivion when I pull the toilet handle. I don't really want my money to buy my boss a new car.
You can work for a different employer that extracts a different amount of value. You can’t switch governments without paying exit taxes (in the United States).
> You can work for a different employer that extracts a different amount of value.
Not necessarily as easily as you can vote for a different politician, especially since you're restricted by your ability to change locations (family, property, heritage ties), or industries. And in this day and age changing employer very well may not at all mean you're changing who's extracting your value or how much.
Government meanwhile, at least in a liberal democracy, is fundamentally designed to be petionable and changeable. Thus "we the people." Of course I would agree that this system has been utterly corrupted by neoliberalism and corruption ("lobbying"), but I'm talking at a theoretical level here.
> Not necessarily as easily as you can vote for a different politician
Voting is easy. Of course that doesn't actually do anything, you're entirely held hostage by the 51%. Unlike switching jobs, which is entirely consensual and determined by you. If you dislike the arrangement you made with your boss you are more than welcome to leave at any moment.
If I dislike the arrangement made by 51% of people my only option is to leave - an option that I have to pay exit taxes in order to exercise.
Do you think people would do the following arrangement; work for free until the business becomes profitable (which could be never), but then get a much higher share of the labor margin?
It's an interesting question, but it's too narrowly focused. Surely we can think of more risk-reward structures than just "founding engineer?" What about worker co-ops? Revenue sharing agreements? Profit sharing? Equity on top of salary? Base pay plus performance?
Capital owners aren't the only ones taking a risk, laborers do as well. Why is it that only capital risk is considered?
State funding is socialism, I thought we weren't about that here? Anyway that's basically what this Ireland thing is about.
SBA loans are given at the whim of a bank, who is looking for a very strong guarantee of return on investment. It can also come with terms that restrict business behaviors - this is HN, just imagine Bain capital gave you ten million dollars, do you then get to run your business in a way that targets a healthy, sustainable profit margin with albeit flat growth line?
Anyway that's boring and been done before. Surely after ~300 years of plain Jane capitalism we can start playing with more exotic modes of organization? Why do only the banks get to invent new financial instruments to destroy markets with?
Why would I ever do work if I can just do art? I mean I have worked in the creative industries so I have successfully done art for others but why would I do art to serve others if I can just do what I want and live comfortably.
Or is it more of have to apply to be subsidized and the government chooses what art is worth subsidizing, which won’t result in good art, more just government building lobby bad art.
> Authors would solve a problem in a way that ignored existing patterns
if you’re not writing your code why do you expect people to read it and follow your lead for whatever your preference is for a convention.
I get people who hand write being fussy about this but you start the article off devaluing coding entirely then pivot to how your codebase is written having value that needs to be followed.
It’s either low value or it isn’t but you can’t approach it as worthless then complain when others view your code as worthless and not worth reading too
(author here) Code quality matters a lot—we make an SDK, we sell our code. I'm writing my own code with the assistance of AI tools. When I'm asking an agent to step in, I can recognize when the tools are producing poor results, I can pause the work, correct it, or take the wheel in order to get things going in the right direction. Programming is still important, quality and care perhaps more important than ever, given how much of it we can do when tool-assisted.
Discontinuing is fine, the egregious part is not open sourcing it. Huge swathes of internet culture in terms of both story telling, animation and games is locked up in this system they have no interest in.
Either it has value and shouldn't be open sourced in which case why not keep developing it.
If it has no value whats the excuse not open source it as a sign of good will for artists and developers to invest time in your ecosystem, otherwise the message is "If you build with our apps and systems you will be locked out of your work forever when its an inconvenience for us, even if you're paying us hundreds a year"
The right answer would be Win32, but apparently all those devs already retired from Windows team.
So we're left with those that only know Web, thus Webview2 or React Native. Or those whose job depends on pretending WinUI is still what was sold under Project Reunion at BUILD 2020.
Widgets are the thing OS teams make when out of ideas, said "oh God" out loud when that WWDC happened last year or year before where every Apple OS had a huge section on widgets.
I feel tired working with AI much faster than I did when I used to code, dunno if it's just that I don't really need to think much at all other than keep in mind the broad plan and have an eye out if a red flag of the wrong direction shows in the transcript, don't even bother reading the code anymore since Opus 4.5 I haven't felt the need to.
Manually coding engaged my brain much more and somehow was less exhausting, kinda feels like getting out of bed and doing something vs lazing around and ending up feel more tired despite having to do less.
Something that people underestimate a lot is that we aren’t “brains in a jar” and the elevated states of consciousness, such as “flow”, require a deep involvement of the body. As such manual coding is much more likely to bring you into the zone than irregular interactions with an LLM.
I actually believe that there are much better ways to incorporate AI into software development than any of the mechanisms we’ve seen so far. For instance, it would make a lot more sense that you actually write the software manually and get the usual autocomplete suggestions, along with some on the fly reviews, an extension proposals, such as writing the body of a function that you’re calling from the core function you’re writing now.
reply