9rx

Then I dare say you've found your market fit. Tomorrow, your task is to start looking for a contractor position doing the exact same thing you are doing now. There's your business.

> but every idea/attempt (and I have made several attempts) I have never even makes revenue let alone profit.

Not even a single penny? What did these attempts look like? Were you out there knocking on doors offering to weed every flowerbed in the city? Or were you sticking to fun tasks, like programming, that made it feel like you were busy building a business but in actuality were hiding from it?

That might on the surface sound contradictory with high depreciation as that means someone has to pay for an expensive new machine. But they are not really at odds with each other when you think about it.

You may have a point that many have no idea how chickens work. Egg laying being like giving birth isn't an unreasonable explanation if you had to come up with one on the spot while completely in the dark. But most understand how milk is produced because even if they've never seen a cattlebeast, they deal with milk-producing humans daily.

Carnivorous potatoes aren't as tasty?

Where else are you going to get them from? A calf factory?

> And the calves are an unwanted byproduct

Am I misinterpreting you again? Heifer calves are the prized possession that ensures that your dairy continues into the future. Cows don't last forever (or even all that long).

You maybe had a stronger case for bull calves, but now that modern breeding can select for heifers with ~90% confidence, that's hardly an issue anymore. And, I mean, in this day of age of high-priced beef, even if you get the occasional bull you're not exactly complaining either.

Not just that. A cow couldn't be a cow if she hadn't become pregnant.

Am I misinterpreting you here? You're saying most people think cows are bred (you know, what causes pregnancy), and presumably think that that calves are born — I've never met anyone who didn't know what a calf is, but somehow don't realize that pregnancy happens inbetween?

Is that... controversial? Obviously a cow normally gives milk without being pregnant. It wouldn't be able to feed its calf otherwise.

But what you don't often see is one being willing to scale that client base to two. That is what I was trying to get at. Having two clients actually provides greater security than just one, as even if one client relieves you of your services you still have the other to help support you during the downtime. However, there is no free lunch. Two clients wanting your attention is orders of magnitude less enjoyable than just one client, and it only gets worse as you scale even bigger. There is good reason why most prefer to never scale beyond a single client.

Would we? Starting a business is easy. Building a profitable business isn't even that hard. Wanting pleasure in our work is what stops us. Running a business generally isn't much fun. We work salary because it means we can focus on the enjoyable parts of the business, letting someone else deal with the crap.

"Nothing" is a stretch. Major capital being now being allocated towards building AI data centres, away from what it was doing previously, is absolutely a contributing factor. Of course not the only one, but there is never just one reason for anything.

The only place where the your contrived idea is in any way plausible is where you have a solo developer who thinks he is able to write code without making mistakes or needing to document anything, using a half-assed type system not failing as some kind of proof to himself of that. But in reading this he, unless the hubris is completely off the charts, will be reevaluating that stance.

Or how to interact with other humans? Because if he understood that he would find someone to do the computer stuff for him. Of course, he spoke to the reporter just fine, so we know it isn't people skills that is the problem. Clearly its that $40 more puts the price of the tickets over what he has the budget for. Simple as that.

I know you are Mr. Moneybags over here and don't understand how normal people have limits on how much they can spend, but that's the reality for most. Especially those at the age of 81 who cannot reasonably mortgage their future.

Okay, so you are dreaming of a situation where you allow a new developer who doesn't know anything about how to engineer software unfettered access to your codebase and he goes in and starts mucking about to where he ends up doing things that no sensible human would ever consider acceptable?

I accept you like to live dangerously and have no real care for the product you are building. But, still, you've only covered a limited subset of all the similar things this new developer who doesn't know the first thing about building software can make a mess of. Ocaml just isn't going to cut it.

To reach the full gamut you need, say, a proper dependent type system. But are you really going to throw all your Ocaml code away and start writing Rocq just to deal with this guy you should have never let touch your code in the first place? Probably not. So, what now? Your only practical option is to fire him and find someone who actually understands how to write software. And at that point your tests will catch such forgetfulness just fine.

> No test will catch this 100%

Testing cannot exhaust all cases where the search space is infinite as that requires infinite time to evaluate. In this case, you have exactly 4 states. That is evaluated on the order of nanoseconds. If your tests are not capturing every one of those four permutations, it seems clear that you need to stop letting any random Joe who has never done more than some quick vibe coding anywhere near your code. These are solved problems.

And, hell, even if you did switch to a language with a proper type system, like Rocq, so you could mathematically guarantee all aspects of your program, the shitty programmer will still fail to write theorems that are free of holes. So don't think that even lets you of the hook in hiring those who live by the vibes. There is simply no escaping the need for solid engineering.

When you have that, exhaustiveness checking still remains a useful tool, but you aren't going to forget something and ship broken code to production if you don't have it. This isn't a realistic scenario outside of the contrived. Again, The construct is useful enough that you don't need to oversell it on imagined hypotheticals.

Given a certain set of quantifiable measures that is no doubt true, but then that only pushes the question to how are the measures determined to be objectively relevant? If the aforementioned fast/famous guitar players had started with a different technique there is a chance they wouldn't have become fast/famous. In that case, given the criteria of reaching notable speed/fame, it is possible their "bad" methods were actually best of all.

But also, even where everyone agrees there is a better way, that doesn't equate to an alternative being bad. So the original question still stands: How do we determine "shockingly bad" as opposed to "different"?

Which is just a cost. Either he has to pay to learn, or pay someone else to do it for him. A cost you maintain is just $40.

> If the price of the season tickers had been x+$40 this year do you think he would have broken his 50 year streak?

Well, given your assertions about $40 being the added cost, that' exactly what he did. Allegedly. I suspect what you are really trying to get at is that he actually has purchased the tickets and that this is just a silly ruse for social media attention.

Or you are subtly trying to say that $40 is woefully underestimated. But you don't see that out to lunch to walk back on that now. I am sure you carefully calculated the cost. Else why would you post it at all?

The universe didn't offer a manual on how to play guitar, so how are you determining that their technique was bad? Given what you say about them, maybe they actually had the perfect technique?

Right, because the cost blows his budget. If money was no object his personal assistant would already have the tickets purchased and would be busy putting the game schedule in his calendar. The only hurdle is cost, as always.

> What are the chances that he would stop if it costs $40 more?

Huh. There's that figure again. If is not established, why do we keep seeing this meaningless and baseless figure appear out of nowhere?

Of course, it isn't meaningless or baseless. Contrary to your insistence all of a sudden, it was clearly established in a number of earlier comments as how much it would cost to be able to purchase the season tickets.

And so the answer is the chances appear to be nil. Best I can tell, he chose to opt out of getting tickets over that $40. If it was all a ruse and he actually bought the tickets all along, then what are we even talking about?

Not really. The effort required to produce the same result has declined, but it has been on the decline for many decades already. That is nothing new. Of course, in the real world, nobody wants the same result over and over, so expectations will always expand to consume all of your available effort.

If there is some future where your effort has been replaced, it won't be AI that we're talking about.

Obviously. Anyone who does understand how networks work aren't going to spend any time talking about it. People don't talk about things they are certain about. They talk about what they don't know much about to feel out what they're missing. You will never find a discussion where pushing back reveals that you found the world's utmost expert. The world's utmost expert is bored with the subject and has moved on to talking about the things he has gaps in.

Another comment suggested that Altman was once beat up by a black man. If true, it is possible Sam has developed a conditioned response that associates black men with danger and his reaction stemmed from that. However, that isn't the same thing as racism and to try and categorize it as such would be quite disingenuous.

So, either:

1. He cannot get tickets because the cost of the ticket plus $40 exceeds his budget.

2. He can get tickets because $40 more is no big deal.

The link asserting that he cannot get tickets implies #1. If he can get tickets then what are we even talking about?

What else would you need to correct? I've never had trouble with LLMs generating basic syntax in any language. Architecture is exactly the aspect of language where LLMs seem to like to go to crazytown when in Typescript. It seems you've noticed too if the ideas in that area have had to come all from you.

That is the implication in the link: That he will not be able to buy season tickets this year due to them costing $40 more than he anticipated.

But if you are trying to suggest that he has bought the tickets already, then what on earth are we talking about?

As a farmer, it is funny to see how people react to you based on the current profitability winds. When farming is a money maker, everyone acts envious and treats you like a king. When times are tough, they think you're a slack-jawed yokel.

I expect in that lies the answer to your question: We denigrate anything that isn't, as a rule, making a lot of money. Manual jobs generally haven't made much money in the last century, and humorously the exceptions, like professional athlete, get exempted from being considered manual work.

Maybe, but you still need humans to make that call. The software is still built for humans no matter how much indirection you add.

There is a conceivable day where that is no longer true, but when you have reached that point it is no longer AI.