9rx

I'm not so sure of that. America has rapidly moved away from believing in some kind of magical spirit in the sky, but they most certainly haven't given up on religion in general. They have latched on to other blind faiths and rituals.

What hasn't typically come with those new religions, like you allude to, is a church; a place where fellowship occurs. That is a reasonable possibility for the decline in happiness. Research regularly suggests that most people find happiness in relationships with other people.

Nothing is ever single-faceted, though.

Housing is actually quite liquid as it is incredibly easy to mortgage. More likely you are overestimating how much housing value is actually there. The majority of American homeowners have already tapped into that liquidity. Owning a house that is worth, say, $1MM on the open market doesn't necessarily mean that your net worth is $1MM.

The wealthiest people I see don't live in any particular place. They have houses everywhere — inner city, the spacious suburbs you mention, rural, and everything in between. They don't limit themselves to living in just one country either.

Having one home and seeing your entire life revolve around it is what poor people do.

You might be pissed that the machine malfunctioned at all, but you kind of have to accept that if you want to be in the business. It comes with the territory. But you are not going to personally travel all the way from the office out to the field to fix it. That's insanity.

The small farmer who has to do it all to make the business viable has more reason to want to fix it himself, but they live on the used market. The small farmer can't afford those new machines. Have you seen how expensive new equipment is?

And that is exactly what Ursa is gambling on here: That if they remove all but the bare necessities that they can get the price point of new down to something small farmers can actually afford. However, it remains to be seen if that is compelling enough. Not having all the modern conveniences does take its toll on your mind and body after a long day in the field. A modern-spec used machine may still be more appealing to the small farmer who has to operate his own equipment — and let's face the harsh reality here: even if you aren't personally going to operate it, hired help isn't coming if you don't give them the most luxurious equipment available. They can just as easily go work for the farm that was willing to invest in it.

Like before, those next in line buying used equipment on smaller farms are more likely to have free time to spend on doing their own repairs and may even enjoy doing it as a hobby, but like before, the are limited to what's available on the used market. If the BTOs aren't buying Kubotas[1], it won't be a used option. This segment of farmers aren't choosing what enters the market initially.

[1] And generally they don't, but the big-time snow pushers seem to really like them, so in reality you do have options even on the used market. It turns out that tractors aren't just for farmers.

John Deere's whole business model has been built around being the most repairable — ensuring that you can get the parts when you need them, not days or weeks later. I own farm equipment from all the major brands and I've been burned by that before. Deere is undeniably the winner in repairability.

They are quite protective of their intellectual property, that is true. Although what tech company isn't? I remember the time I wanted to see the service manual and it took a wink and a nod to get the service tech to decrypt it for me.

But, I mean, he did it, so... The fun thing about employees is that they are real people who don't really care what some nebulous figurehead in a far away place has to say. Especially when those employees don't work for Deere in the first place. I have no idea where you got that bizarre idea. You should step foot on a farm sometime.

Although, honestly, from my farmer perspective I think that is even a stretch. Someone needing to replace their 50 year old machine right now is more likely to look at a 20 year old used machine with a smaller outlay than the brand new Ursa. They are considerably less pricy than a Deere or Fendt, but still pretty capital insensitive relative to what a farmer in the market they are trying to address can justify.

Granted, there is no doubt someone out there who is willing to pay for the "new car smell". There is always someone out there who will buy what you are selling, no matter what it is you are trying to sell. The question, as always, is: Are there enough buyers out there to keep the cash flowing? The fact that they still have 2025 models sitting on their lot that aren't moving, I'm thinking not, but we shall see. Kudos for them being willing to try.

But technology is expensive. That's the play here: To strip the tech so that the tractor can be sold for a fraction of the cost. And for the farmers who don't need tech, that might be appealing. They will never win over the farmers who are already buying equipment with all the bells and whistles, but there could be an opportunity to capture those who are still in something 50 years old and are looking to update to an affordable newer machine that isn't worn out.

Repairability will be the biggest concern for any potential customer. It helps that they've tried to stay as "off-the-shelf" as possible, but the article suggests they struggle to keep parts already and there is no dealer network to see that the parts are sitting where the farmers are located. John Deere is the market leader mostly because they've worked hard to make sure you can get parts as soon as you need them and not have to wait days/weeks to have it shipped from across the country/world, if they exist at all. The Belarus tractor saga taught farmers the hard lesson of what happens when the machine is cheap to buy but parts are difficult to source long ago.

1. No matter how great of a shade tree mechanic you are, you will never be able to fix it faster than someone who does it every day. They have found all the little tricks and quirks about your machine that your casual maintenance will never uncover.

2. While large farms with full-time mechanics on staff have been known to make deals to warehouse parts in their own shop on consignment, much more realistically for any kind of normal farm you are going to have to drive to the dealership to get the parts you need. Whereas the dealership tech can bring the parts to you. Meaning that you have to travel twice as far, taking twice as long, to get the parts back to your equipment than if you call a mechanic.

The things that are likely to fail under use where there has been proper maintenance tend to be the things that are unpredictable and catastrophic, at very least requiring parts, and most likely requiring advanced knowhow. And at that point, the dealership tech is going to be faster at getting you back up and running, even if you could theoretically pull it off yourself. So, realistically, there isn't much of a compelling case for doing your own repairs when time is of the essence.

Farmers are often willing to accept more downtime to do it themselves out of pride, though. I admittedly often fall victim to that myself, so I get it. But it’s clear that the farmers who are serious about farming as a business aren’t dinking around trying to fix things themselves. It is not economically prudent to do so. Granted, not all farmers farm for business sake. For many it’s more of a hobby or lifestyle and wanting to be a part-time mechanic can play into that.

Even without limits, you're never going to be as efficient as someone who fixes the same failure every single day. I've certainly fallen into that trap before. Sure, I got it fixed myself in the end, but in hindsight I'd have been back in the field a lot sooner if I had simply brought in the expert. When time is of the essence, putzing around trying to fix it yourself is not the optimal choice.

And that's not even considering the need for parts. Driving all the way to the dealership and back to get the parts you need is much more time consuming than the dealership tech bringing the parts with him when he comes. He only has to travel half as far as you do.

That entirely depends on your business goals. If you want to leverage debt to amass wealth you need scale to eke out a living after the debt burden takes most of your potential profit. The 4020 is going to fall well short of what is required there. Those who see farming as an income source rather than a wealth generator, however, don't need scale and can do quite well with the venerable 4020. Eight rows is plenty when you don't have the bank breathing down your neck wondering if you are going to cover your six figure loan payment this month.

It's a lot like the business of tech, really. Some want to build the startup that never turns a profit but sells for billions years into the future, while others want to build the small "mom and pop" that offers a lifestyle, even if it never makes them rich. Both are valid and viable approaches. It depends on what you want out of it.

Well, sure. Maintenance is an off-season job. Its that or sit on the couch watching TV, so you may as well be in the shop getting equipment ready. Even if it takes you longer than an experienced tech, does it really matter? Not really. The winters are long.

Repairs are a different story. When things break, you need it fixed now. Wasting a day trying to figure out how to separate complex, seized parts from each other isn't time you have. You're going to be hiring a mechanic who has done it a million times before.

Of course, more important than who does the work is part availability. Having the human capacity to get something fixed means nothing if you cannot also get the parts you need. I've certainly been caught more than once needing to wait a week on a part, which is not a fun place to be. And this is where John Deere has focused their business: Doing more to keep parts available near to where the farmers are, so that you can get parts exactly when you need them. This is, above all else, why John Deere is the market leader.

> Farmers who want advanced capabilities might now look to build them on top of no-tech tractors with open-source solutions

I have been going down this road and am starting to regret it a bit. The saving grace is that I have found enjoyment in building a system of my own. But if I found it to be a chore, at this point I'd have deep remorse that I didn't just pay someone like John Deere for a fully delivered, highly polished solution. I know the HN crowd tends towards the DIY, but, having actual experience here, I don't see this happening outside of the small subset of farmers who find fun in it. It is a decent hobby for those so inclined, but from a purely commercial perspective the time and effort can be better put to use elsewhere.

Technically there are standards, but you know how that goes in the real world... Funnily enough, a friend bought a new tractor and planter, both from John Deere, and they weren't even compatible with each other. The tractor needed to have the cab removed to install the necessary hardware (ethernet) to be compatible with the planter.

> have been standardized forever

Hydraulic hose couplers didn't find common adoption until the mid-80s/early-90s, which is surprisingly late.

And as a farmer who owns equipment from across all the major brands (and some unheard of brands to boot), you are right that John Deere is most reliable for having parts in stock. I've been burned by the others having to wait a week on parts to be delivered from who knows where. That is not a fun position to be in. Repairability is where John Deere has the clear advantage. That is, just as you point out, why they are most popular. Nothing else matters if your equipment doesn't work.

You pay a lot more for that luxury, but when the clock is ticking...

It is not like John Deere actually has a monopoly. There is just as much CNH (CaseIH, New Holland) seen out in the fields, and even when you want all the bells and whistles, Fendt is rapidly becoming understood to be the true king of tech. What John Deere does have going for it is that they generally do better than everyone else at keeping parts in stock where the parts are needed; local to the farmer. Ironically, repairability is where John Deere finds the win at the end of the day.

In fact, their TractorHouse profile shows that they are still struggling to sell last year's models. If there was demand, why hasn't that demand already gobbled up the stock? "I guess it would be cool to own one if it was given to me for free" isn't demand.

If changing the algorithm is going to negatively affect the program then the CTO would have written tests to ensure that the important property is preserved. There is really no reason for the junior to be concerned as if he introduces an algorithm that is too slow, for example, then the tests aren't going to pass.

Yes, it is most definitely possible the CTO was a hack who didn't know how to build software and the junior was brought in to clean up his mess. However, in that case the information is simply lost. An LLM will not be able to recover it, but neither will a human.

Absolutely you have no control over what others have written, but you also have no way to access their lost context, so you are no further ahead than an LLM in that situation. The available information is the same for you as any other system.

It wouldn't be able to reverse engineer why something was done when the "why" is some arbitrary decision that was made based on the engineer not having had his morning coffee yet, but those "whys" aren't an important property of the system, so who cares? Even in the unlikely event that someone documented that they zigged instead of zagged because it was just the vibes they were feeling in that moment, nobody is going to ever bother to read it anyway.

The parent is talking about toolkits like Swing where things looked[1] almost, sort of, but not quite like the native system. That wanted to be native, but for technical reasons fell short. These are what many considered to be completely unfit for use. Whereas today, designers wouldn't think twice about applying the same kind of almost-native-but-not-quite theme to match their arbitrary whims and think they are doing the world a service by doing so, the UI conventions (to the extent that there remains any) of the host system be damned.

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Gui-widg...

The exciting part of the job is, and always has been, listening to idle chitchat where you pick up on the subtle cues of where one is finding difficulty in their life and then solving those problems. I think AI could already largely handle that today just fine, except:

You have to convince, especially non-technical, people to have idle chitchat with machines instead of humans

-or-

Convince them of and into having a machine always listening in to their idle conversations with humans

Neither of those are all that palatable in the current social landscape. If anything, people seem to be growing more weary of letting technology into their thoughts. Maybe there is never a future where humans become accepting of machines being always there trying to figure out what is wrong with them.

The trouble with AI replacing jobs is that a lot of jobs exist only because people want to have other people to talk to and are willing to pay for the company.