I just tried to put omarchy/arch on my 16” mbp. Everything worked (eventually… speakers and keyboard backlight needed special stuff) except for suspend or hibernate. After about a week, I gave up and put Monterey on it.
So, you’ve got a portable deck wired to augmented reality glasses. Just need a chordic keyboard and you’ll be a full-on Neuromancer/Snow Crash gargoyle :)
You prefer elegant, high-level solutions that are intuitive and accessible to other developers. You likely favor functional programming, clear abstractions, and code that reads like prose.
You prefer elegant, high-level solutions that are intuitive and accessible to other developers. You likely favor functional programming, clear abstractions, and code that reads like prose.
Estimating: similar to planning, thinking through the whole problem and surfacing early anything that seems like not a big deal on the surface, but actually is.
Estimate changes over time: surfaces underlying issues e.g. too many urgent bugs/fires/triage, product changing priority constantly, etc...
Yeah, I don't think "seeing how estimates change over time" is very valuable. The reason that "planning is everything" is that it makes a problem tractable.
Business doesn’t hate creatives, and is not specifically targeting creatives to automate them away. Any job that can be done as good for a lower price or better for the same price is going to be a target.
Let’s follow the AI and automation craze to its eventual conclusion - automations everywhere, humans are either employed in automation industry, or are unemployed at a massive scale.
Stable jobs are replaced by ever-optimized gig economy for some, and chronic poverty for others. For there to even be economy - the massive underemployed population subsists on government welfare.
Cynic in me thinks that all of the wealth generated by enormous productivity gains resulting from automation will not find its way towards population displaced by it. Those cashiers, toll booth, and warehouse workers did not find themselves in much more lucrative careers - I don’t see why it will be any different for truck and cab drivers who will be joining them in the near future.
If you see a future where these people who suddenly found all this extra leisure time o. Their hands and no income - are somehow blossoming in creative directions and realizing their own potential - I’d like to have it painted for me, as it all looks pretty bleak to me. Just not quiet sure of the timeline.
Best I can come up with is an emergence of some kind of counter-cultural protest market where people buy and sell “made by humans” products, and are continuously attacked by various regulations originating from mega corporations who captured the government.
> Cynic in me thinks that all of the wealth generated by enormous productivity gains resulting from automation will not find its way towards population displaced by it.
Empirically, that's not true.
Unemployment was at an all-time low after most of those jobs were eliminated, and wages after adjusting for inflation continued to rise in real terms.
I am inclined to doubt the sources of these empirical observations. Statistics are funny like that, “average patient temperature in the hospital” effect and frequent inability to correctly attribute confounding factors outside of observed window.
Equally bad is anecdotal evidence, but I’ll drop some anyway. For a while now I am observing a crisis thats, admittedly subjectively, easy to see - but is somehow absent in those empirical sources citing economic accomplishments. An indirect evidence of what I am talking about - is crushing defeat of democrats/establishment in last election, following among other reasons, quite a backlash for boasting about said accomplishments.
But rather than picking issue with one of my points - I still would like someone to describe the counterpoint to my dystopian expectations - where, for example, would all those professional drivers I mentioned earlier go?
Ps. Oh speaking of statistics - remember Greenspan’s “there’s no real estate bubble, there’s froth in individual markets” right before 2008 financial crisis? It be funny like that, sometimes much derided common sense is all you need /shrug.
> where, for example, would all those professional drivers I mentioned earlier go?
Wherever all the cashiers, toll booth operators, and farmers went after automation took their jobs.
New jobs are created, the people displaced have to migrate to them.
Is it fun for them? No.
Is it how the world works? Yes.
Technology thus far has a VERY VERY long and established role of creating more jobs than it eliminates.
See >95% of the population being employed in agriculture for tens of thousands of years and being reduced to about 5% over the course of 100 years (and civilization being FAR FAR better off for it).
Will that trend one day end? Probably.
Will it be doomsday for the plebs? Who knows.
Is it happening within a timeframe worth worrying about? Unlikely.
That's right, they don't just hate creatives. They'll go after anyone.
I wonder what the hyper-capitalist's end game looks like. One giant company that covers everything with one man sitting at a dashboard, tweaking parameters? Is that one man even necessary?
I wonder what our plans are for when "the economy" prefers to do it's thing without us. Writing poems all day? What capitalist instrument will provide "money" for us to spend in this giant machine?
I don't think its at all extremist to look at that picture, realize it won't really have made any sense for the majority of the people on the planet well before it gets to that point, and that consequently some type of major global revolution will prevent that from happening.
Yes, this has always been the case. This is why capital holders are actively hostile to labor organizing and tend to back fascism when liberalism falls into crisis.
They don't hate at all. They are just maximising profit (which they have an obligation to do). If they didn't replace you with more efficient things, they would be outcompeted and die.
So, feel free to criticise capitalism and how inhumane it is, but don't anthropomorphise it by ascribing human emotions to the system.
I was a psych major in undergrad, and did an experiment as a riff on stereotype threat and got a small effect. I had the participants solve brain teaser puzzles and the only difference was introducing them as coming from 11th grade or graduate level math. Undergrads did worse when they thought it was graduate level.
This is the most maddening thing about all content now. It's all platform based and every platform wants to constantly push/"recommend" things to you and your kids. Right now I use Roku and Plex but even both of those are constantly trying to break down the wall.
Personality is ~70% determined by genetics, not life experience.[0]
I’m surprised that someone interested enough in the topic to write such a long post wouldn’t put the time in to do a cursory dive into personality psychology. I’m going to assume that the author has a similar definition of personality to mainstream psychology, but if so, they are ignoring accepted studies and evidence that make it pretty clear that personality is not learned through conditioning like AI.
There's no practical point in separating genetics from life experience, as they go hand in hand together.
Someone who has the genetics to be physically attractive/beautiful will have a completely different set of experiences than someone who isn't. Same goes for intelligence.
Also, the source you linked only pertains to IQ (which itself is not a perfect measure of intelligence), and IQ is not personality (although I have met some folks who do treat their IQ as a substitute for such).
The analysis of the data revealed no significant difference between MZA twins (reared apart) and MZT twins (reared together) in regards to personality measures such as temperament, hobbies, interests, career pursuits or social attitudes.
This is noted and considered out of scope:
>Obviously some traits are more genetic, and thus inherent, than others, but that is not the scope of this post as even highly-heritable traits will result in a large distribution of outcomes.
Sure, and they even go on to say that the article is about “what helps to explain the differences in outcome between two genetically identical people.” However it’s clear that is not actually what the article is about and they do talk about traits that are highly heritable and not shown to be dependent on environment and life experience.
It reminds me of the expression "locks are to keep honest people out," in that code which runs on a device you control is code that you control: https://github.com/shroudedcode/apk-mitm#readme
