> The worlds is grim because billionaires have a large part of the cake and the rest has to fight over the crumbs.
et tu hn?
I am tired of seeing this nonsense on social media (it's particularly bad on reddit, where /r/antiwork and it's offshoots keep hitting the front page)
- Wealth is not a zero-sum game
- Yes, billionaires shouldn't exist because they're a symptom of a broken system
- And they don't exist on a long enough timescale, there's a reason why oil barons and railroad tycoon families are a shadow of their former selves, and why the richest people are all in tech/oil
- Billionaires and increasing income inequality are a symptom of a bigger problem. Musk wouldn't have as much money if his publicly traded stock wasn't as popular... among the public.
- Modern day securities are broken because they're poorly regulated because the public doesn't vote for people that would do the regulation.
Most people are only able to vote for candidates that are chosen and campaigned by the monied interests. We can blame the people for not seeing how the system works sooner… but really that’s not who is acting out of line…
It literally is, though. For one's wealth to grow, the wealth of others must shrink. You could print more money, but that'd just result in inflation reducing everyone's wealth.
If you intend to say value is not a zero-sum game, I agree.
I think your explanation of inflation is a little simplistic. It appears that governments can print some amount of money, relative to total supply and gdp, without causing inflation. On the first level, thats because some money is destroyed every year (or buried under mattresses). On a second level, its because they actually target some small amount of inflation, to avoid forementioned mattress-hoarding). However, even beyond that, the amount they need to print to achieve the same level of inflation can be vastly different depending on circumstance and country. That is usually relating to demand for money, which isn't fixed (but also to some degree by trust in government by the financial system). Inflation can also heavily based on vibes - events like ukraine war and covid can become self-fulfilling prophecies, with business leaders expecting inflation, so they raise their prices to get ahead of it. Everyone independently does this, and pat themselves on the back for their powers of prediction as they observe prices rise.
Some guy just built a motion design tool in 4months - and it's impressive.
I've been building a design tool myself for many years and I like following this space, and also know how hard it is to build an editor (not just the code, but the product design as well). I've been following different subreddits (like /r/vibecoding) to see what people are building, and levels of delusion of capability is high. Lots of junk software that goes nowhere.
This might be the first thing I've seen that's genuinely quite impressive technically, and it's made by someone with domain experience, so even if there's lapses, overall, this seems actually useful.
When I first saw the post, I genuinely thought this was vapor ware because this kind of thing is quite difficult, and even with AI I hadn't seen other people build something. I often say, where's all the photoshop/illustrator/etc. alternatives. Well here's something. The guy did the interview where someone clicked around and actually built something. So it seems genuine.
The app itself has node-based editing, and layers, and timelines like After Effects, Cavalry (now owned by Canva), etc. This kind of procedrual workflow can be really powerful, and if it integrates with plugins (which it should be apt for), it opens up a whole world of possibilities.
Also bonus points for the website being quite nice as well. Really doesn't look vibe coded with gradients everywhere, and uppercase titles everywhere. But it still has a distinct aesthetic that really helps with branding.
My only consolation is that this is so obvious that it's not going to lead to a disaster. Things like the housing crisis happened because long-established institutions like credit ratings and mortgage lenders didnt do their jobs.
It's the swiss cheese model, hidden behind curtains.
This is like a giant sign saying you can buy $2 for a $1.
This is exactly how the dot com crash happened. People point out this like pets.com, but that wasn’t the issue. It was the musical chairs the played with the fiber telecoms. Today it’s data centers.
> So why is it OK for a software developer to just arbitrarily decide to flip a switch and remove my ability to use a product I paid for?
I see this argument repeated, and it's made exactly like this where it sets up a strawman and then brings up software.
No one is coming into your computer to repossess your software.
They are either turning off their servers, OR they are ending a subscription.
If you have a bus pass, you can do anything you want with the card. Your chisels being 50 years old, has nothing to do with you being able to ride the bus forever just because you bought a one-month pass.
That is irrelevant to the topic of ownership since you bought the product, you can now update the code.
If you want, you can now change that behavior.
Whether that's allowed by the TOS and what the consequences to that are is also a separate issue. At that point, people shouldn't buy the product if they disagree with the conditions.
> At that point, people shouldn't buy the product if they disagree with the conditions.
I think a problem with this idea is that terms of service can be difficult to understand. For example a lot of licenses or terms of service forbid "reverse engineering" entirely. In my mind, "reverse engineering" is just trying to understand something based on observing what it does, and even though a legal agreement is probably using a more strict definition, how am I supposed to know where the boundary is? "Reverse engineering" isn't usually defined in the agreement itself. And if what I want to do is considered "reverse engineering", it might not be legally enforceable anyway.
Sometimes I buy a physical object, take it home, and then open it and find conditions that I would have disagreed with if I knew about them. I've noticed this with books, but the same could happen with software. I don't know if conditions like that would be legally enforceable, but I think the complexity of understanding this makes individual decisions about what conditions to accept a poor solution to what Stop Killing Games is trying to solve.
The Steam Subscriber Agreement [1] seems to prohibit reverse engineering games (referred to as "content" in the agreement), but I guess I'm misunderstanding it because some GPL games are on Steam (e.g. SuperTux [2]).
I agree that people shouldn't buy a product if they disagree with the conditions, but I think this is too complicated for most people to do for every product. Maybe some of these conditions should be illegal to even put in a terms of service, even if they already aren't enforceable.
No you should be clear that its not purchased product but a subscription. Don't expect people to buy into the model that people can take away your right to use a product as you wish.
Of what, though? A weird subjective pulled-out-of-the-ass rating system, with also pulled-out-of-the-ass weights? I think that's where GGP's confusion comes from.
> You still can’t call a function that returns a future from synchronous code. (Well, you can, but if you do, the person who later maintains your code will invent a time machine, travel back in time to the moment that you did this and stab you in the face with a #2 pencil.)
Author makes up a lie.
Then lampshades it away with a colorful non sequitur.
---
The alternatives that people praise like golang, have other tradeoffs that are much worse because the async logic is now implicit. Your entire codebase is now a surface area that is at risk of being blocked by waiting on a channel; the the mitigation of this is through responsible use of coroutines, but then you're right back around to extra information about your code that is analogous to colring, except not as explicit as async/await.
I don't see how that's a lie; calling an async function from synchronous code is generally a mistake. There are cases where it's appropriate but it's rare
If you haven’t taken a lock, any other code can start executing at any time, so any invariant you might have established on one line may no longer be true on the next line.
If you don’t depend on anything mutable that anyone else can modify then this is mitigated, but that’s a very specific discipline you have to abide by.
> Your entire codebase is now a surface area that is at risk of being blocked
The point of goroutines is that they can freely block when needed. It's not like async where you have to be paranoid at every moment about writing blocking code
Why would there be paranoia when writing blocking code with async?
The downside of goroutines is that you have no control when the goroutine context switches, so naively accessing a global value can lead to race conditions (which the language has no warnings for despite being such a concurrent language), while the same code works fine in JavaScript because context switches don't happen in synchronous code.
> Why would there be paranoia when writing blocking code with async?
In languages like JavaScript, you have to be careful to avoid blocking the event loop, and use something like worker threads for CPU-intensive tasks. Otherwise you will end up with long tail latencies. In Go, the runtime automatically manages this and can suspend and resume long-running goroutines.
> naively accessing a global value can lead to race conditions
Fair point that the language doesn't automatically catch this, but that's what a mutex is for. In return you get actual parallelism that can use all your CPU cores
Amusingly, Go, a language designed for concurrent programming, also had problems with blocking code for years. They had two releases that fixed it with proper preemption (1.2 added preemption, and 1.14 fixed other issues with preemption).
You can only freely block the goroutines that you designed that way, there's plenty of ways of shooting yourself in the foot with goroutines without even touching “blocking” code (because everything is blocking).
I feel like this is a scene from a movie where a character goes "what are you talking about? Look around us, it's already gone" (idk why i am picturing Mark Whalberg for some reason).
But it's all just reddit, medium, twitter (twitter pages, w/e those blog things are).
But I will say that accomplished names in software that also make bombastic statements against AI are people that were... "opinionated" to begin with, and skirt the line between genius and madness quite often. I am thinking names like Jon Blow.
I'd say that most of the big names probably have nuanced opinions and do their own thing rather than spending time on social media.
It's not official. It's literally the same thing as 'freedom fries'. The executive branch can't rename the Department of Defense, only Congress can, and they haven't. The instant Trump leaves office, the only people who will still refer to it as the DoW will be die-hard 'Trumpers'.
et tu hn?
I am tired of seeing this nonsense on social media (it's particularly bad on reddit, where /r/antiwork and it's offshoots keep hitting the front page)
- Wealth is not a zero-sum game
- Yes, billionaires shouldn't exist because they're a symptom of a broken system
- And they don't exist on a long enough timescale, there's a reason why oil barons and railroad tycoon families are a shadow of their former selves, and why the richest people are all in tech/oil
- Billionaires and increasing income inequality are a symptom of a bigger problem. Musk wouldn't have as much money if his publicly traded stock wasn't as popular... among the public.
- Modern day securities are broken because they're poorly regulated because the public doesn't vote for people that would do the regulation.
reply