Yea man, people say combine harvesters will eliminate agriculture jobs, but then who will operate these combine harvesters? Obviously every single manual farm laborer will just switch to being an operator of those.

God, will we never move this discussion past this worthless argument? What value would there be in any of these automatization tools, be in in agriculture or AI, if it just made every single worker switch to being an [automatization tool] operator?

Barring population growth, there is essentially fixed demand for agriculture. For software we don’t know what the market will look like once everything about making it gets automated. Either we will churn out the same amount of software with fewer people, or the same amount of people will churn out larger amounts of software. Or maybe there will be even more people working on creating enormous amounts of software. I’d say the likely answer is somewhere between the first and second option, but time will tell.

If software becomes cheaper to make it’s not like every IT company in the world is running a cartel where they agree to just cut costs and leave the output the same. Someone will come and smash the competition with more or better features and the ones who didn’t invest into development will face pressure to acquire more talent again.

There really isn’t a diminishing return on executing great ideas. Almost all software projects have an essentially endless backlog of items that could be done. So I think it will be between 2. and 3. with people who really understand how software is built being even more in demand than ever since they act as multipliers in making sure the increased output is evolvable and maintainable.

Only a few lucky ones will get the operator jobs, everyone else will queue at the job center.

Save people, not jobs. Alas, the powers that be prevent that.

As seen in many countries, people without jobs don't have much of to live from, unless they are lucky ones living at the beach profiting from shares, driven by endless exponential growth demands.

So what? Someone else can do the same to do the opposite

Perhaps in this case, but there isn't always an opposite, or a team of humans even trying to push counter-propaganda.

What if the help you were asking for was how to hack into a power station (as was just done a few days ago across the US)?

IMO it's a rather naive position to say "I should be given all the power I want, to do whatever I want". Society needs rules to function well.

You don't need 16gb, literally majority of people don't have that and use 8gb and up. especially with forge

It is, but usually the meme misrepresents induced demand. While I don't like cars and we should focus on other infrastructure, adding a lane does help.

It does not reduce congestion, but it does now serve more people at this same current congestion level. And those people have come from somewhere. Sometimes from public transport, which isn't really good, but sometimes from some backwater road.

The bigger problem with induced demand is that it's often poor ROI to add that lane where the demand is highest.

That is, imagine you have a big city. You can add capacity for 1m extra people to travel to the city centre, where there's lots of congestion. Or you find ways to induce demand around the other limits of town, even town current demand is low there.

Odds are you'll pick the first, because it's "obvious" and doesn't require much thinking to see it'd help. But we really ought to look at cost-benefit of the second option too, because repeatedly inducing demand in the centre keeps driving up the incremental cost of further improvements, along plenty of other undesirable second order effects.

Adding lanes is like getting a bigger cache with the same throughput.

It's obvious at the supermarket: what goes faster, a single cashier processing four short lanes of 10 people with round robin, or two cashiers processing a single lane with 40 people?

Is the city center able to process 1m extra people? If not, it doesn't matter how many lanes you build.

Well you often can make it able to "process" 1m extra people: You can build overpasses, and tunnels, and taller buildings. But the cost-per-extra-person will tend to go up accordingly, to the point where you could spend an extraordinary amount attracting people out of the centre.

E.g. London's "Crossrail" / Elizabeth line cost $24 billion. Granted, it also allows some people to go through London faster, but I can't help to wonder what that money could've done if applied to attract businesses out of the centre instead. E.g. upgrading links between towns on the outskirts, upgrading town centres, and generally try to make it more attractive for businesses to be located further out.

Given the extraordinary costs it takes to do large infrastructure projects in London, I'd be very surprised if you couldn't get a higher return on investment that way, or by investing similar sums elsewhere in the UK entirely.

Until more people choose to live further away because the commute is now tolerable with the extra lane (and it's cheaper), and then you're back to square one.

let the startups do some work on their own for once lol

I know that's just a minor point, but I don't think you ever really need multicursor if you have access to vim features

Those features are a worse substitute for that awesome generic UI mechanism called immediate visual feedback (for the same reason Helix's visual-first mode, which unfortunately neovim also lacks, is better)

what brand?

It's much closer to how photoshop generally works, with an extra focus on drawing. Gimp is not a good replacement for photoshop for artists. It's quite popular for this.