darby_nine

> It is also easier for many people to remember how to navigate a GUI/TUI to achieve a task than to use the CLI, likely because it makes use of the parts of our brain for navigating space

I'd be very very surprised if this were true for everyone. I'm certainly more symbol oriented than visually or spatially oriented, for instance, and the ways I AM spatially oriented doesn't map at all to common user interface elements.

Besides, many of the best interfaces (eg magit) aren't spatially oriented at all.

That said, I'll never complain at more interfaces even if I do prefer a query-and-response style interaction.

Our labor laws are so weak in this country this is nearly impossible to determine unless someone fucked up.

> It reads like you apply to the NYT and then you get offered a job based on your gender or race which is obviously not the case.

Obviously? A newspaper is exactly the kind of business to hire based on your personal narrative (including 100% of protected class intersections). That's the entire point of the opinion column. Granted, I don't think that the folks being discussed here are publishing any personal opinions, and I doubt the times is doing anything legally actionable or we would have heard about it, but the idea that they don't consider these factors just because it's illegal is laughable.

This explanation hold less and less water as corporations switch more firmly to tiered compensation tied directly to title.

This kind of thing is impossible to control for, though. How can you tell whether someone's success or lackthereof (including via degree of responsibility) comes from earnest evaluation of merit or social bias? I have a difficulty imagining trusting any kind of confident assessment of the bias at hand.

Sure, but regulation without enforcement is a meaningless concept. This just looks like defacto lack of regulation to me.

How do you distinguish these behaviors?

Hell you could write off all of web3 with that sentence

There's a lot of technically legal anti-competitive behavior. We need our legislators to get off their asses and legislate.

Sort of like primary doctors are just a "tool" to get referrals for treatment

I really wish the title would use "will scale with demand more slowly" rather than saying demand will end, which is trivially false.

This necessarily requires software regulation, too—if your software requires internet connection, functionality should also require internet connections. Why am I making an account with you just to track my periods?

> Tesla owners agree to binding arbitration when purchasing a vehicle

Remember when the law made sense? Me neither.

Enterprises also do not share values with the rest of humanity, so it makes sense they would support the concept of "open source" over actually free software

Sure, but the OSI does not have meaningful values. Why do you giving them credence?

I'm scaling based on productivity from 1985.

Should probably be about $10 more still for entry-level work

Note we also accept stock too if companies want to fork that over instead

Why would you compare to market cap? The company is going to sink or swim regardless of what the market pegs it at.

sourcehut is always worth a mention, though I have never used it in a collaborative environment.

There's no market for e.g. diamond lenses? Sure it's going to be on the expensive end of the market but the same forces are pushing those prices down.

When did people start taking "open source" as a label seriously? The term means nearly nothing in material terms about what you can actually do with the source code. Certainly if you can build a business off it without distributing the source it's not very useful and certainly not much more "open source" than throwing proprietary code on github.

> while your core product is still behind the competition in many areas

IDK, I've been very happy with it. Just the ability to consistently pin/block domains is a massive upgrade over Google.

Curiously this link seems to show the "Academic" lens. Switching to the "Forums" lens pulls it right up for me.

> There is very little marginal cost when software is concerned so metering isn’t even reflective of the costs of using a product.

Well that's my point, isn't it? Neither are subscriptions. The transaction is presented as for a service, but you're really paying for a workforce that might not be providing any marginal value to you at all.

> Metering leads to reaching local optimal states at best, and makes it very difficult to reach a global optimal state.

I don't see how subscriptions are more likely to get us there. Certainly closed-source software (or paying for access to a closed-source service) makes it much harder to find globally optimal states—we're reinventing the wheel over and over and over again, which is tremendously inefficient and presumably would be a problem you'd expect market forces/technological progression to correct.

> it’s hard to look at the world we live in today, with electric cars that can self drive and hand held devices connected to natural language comprehending oracles of knowledge, JIT industries end to end, starships to mars for colonization in mid to late stages, etc, and think “yep the only value is the value the federal reserve has created” as a federal reserve economist posits.

I agree that we're still producing new technology, but just because a certain technology is impressive doesn't mean it's going to yield a lot of value to investors or yield a lot of marginal improvement to productivity. Perhaps I'll be demonstrated wrong when we start mining asteroids and flooding the market with massive productivity shifts again, but there's not exactly any sign this is right around the corner. There's certainly no reason to assume growth as a market invariant just because of technological development has led to growth in the past.

> Creative destruction destroys old industries as much as it creates new ones.

Yes, of course, but this frequently comes with significant productivity benefits. This is what I'm referring to when I say "creating for free". These marginal productivity improvements are going to be harder and harder to come by over time. Huge fan of Schumpeter, btw.

Very interesting paper.

> I show that the decline in interest rates and corporate tax rates over the past three decades accounts for the majority of the period’s exceptional stock market performance.

It's interesting that they've shown this to the exclusion of other narratives, mainly frontier markets like semiconductors and software allowing "easy" creation of value. I think this is partially why investors are so eager to dump so much cash into AI/why Zuckerberg has been so focused on VR/AR—they're looking not just for a solid investment, but an opportunity to get into the rent-seeking class on the ground floor. Why would you invest in a piece of software when you could invest in a "platform" (aka privately-owned market) instead?

Of course, we can't just create these platforms out of nowhere—they require enormous moats like exclusive access to IP or regulatory capture or enormous production capacity or some sort of similar gimmick, and there's only a finite number of these. It seems like this is also a significant reason why growth isn't infinite and should be expected to slow and even reverse in time.

I haven't finished the paper but I eagerly look forward to reading it in full later.

EDIT: spelling, wording, I'm done editing; apologies.

> I think the other piece going into it is that hardware keeps getting faster.

It's also that you're expected to update windows whether or not they've actually improved performance. Why would microsoft prioritize that when the bulk of their sales are driven by other concerns, like enterprise sales and what some might call basic functionality (e.g. Windows Defender, when it was first released).

Hell, now they're moving to a service model and there's even less reason to court consumers directly.

I really hate how disconnected subscription prices are from actual value delivered. Imagine a world where you're billed proportional to usage! What a halcyon dream.