hnthrow0287345

And if we wait until large scale desalination becomes profitable, it will be too late to respond quickly without massive upheaval and deaths.

This is where capitalism drives humanity off a cliff.

Even generating a first-pass of the eventual production code that you can step back and review is useful to get ideas, so long as you guard yourself against laziness of going with the first answer it provides

This is like 80% of CRUD apps. Sometimes they have a few interesting problems but not like the upper 20%. Most of them are hot garbage in terms of code quality because of the offshoring and layoff cycles.

>but I'd rather not have the government decide what I'm allowed to eat.

I don't know how it'd get to that if we had even more supply. I'm saying we'd be better off dealing with the problems of overproduction rather than the problems of unprofitable businesses and killing production capacity because it isn't profitable in the short-term.

I also never said you couldn't have non/not-for-profit food production, just that they shouldn't be for-profit.

>What makes you think the government is remotely qualified to run a canning operation, a logistics operation, a warehousing operation, an HR operation, and a finance operation for peaches?

That'd actually be quite easy for this particular federal government actually (current administration aside). And probably California too.

Of course if they did then what's about to happen with the peach trees, you'd end up killing the dairy cows, which I'm guessing the people in this thread would have a problem with.

Which of course is not enough due to other expenses:

https://www.fb.org/market-intel/farm-bankruptcies-continued-...

https://www.adamsandreese.com/the-ledger/rising-farm-distres...

And those farms get bought up and folded into for-profit operations. You simply can't fix this in the current system.

The government would step in and take over operations. This is why we don't need profit-driven companies responsible for food supply. By all means let Del Monte's managers try their hand in some other industry if they couldn't make it work (or not, because they couldn't make it work).

In a less profit driven world, we might stockpile these in cans and then later throw them away once they spoil, taking over the canning facilities and paying for the wages via taxes on things not needed for survival. We don't maximize food security though, we prefer profit, up to and including choosing not to feed people.

I wouldn't share that with a manager even if they asked. If management were tech competent, they could proactively find inefficiencies themselves and allocate time to it instead of letting developers do all of the thinking for them.

If they gave immediate raises or bonuses for stuff like this, then things would change.

Maybe switch to European markets? Significantly more uncertainty and less stability around the US.

>I hope I don’t come across as too harsh here, but I think a lot of developers are finally being forced to understand that their high salaries and above-average job security were fundamentally predicated on business models that largely didn’t have a ton of competition.

Would love to see the business and manager types manage software and infrastructure. What's the worst that could happen? Go on, do it. Every time a foot gun goes off it'll be followed by a condescending chuckle.

I used to see 'passion' as the defining factor of how to stay in the field and do well, and that was advice given to people who wanted to join the industry -- who showed the minimum of interest. Now we're going to have these non-technical people who definitely aren't interested and definitely don't have passion for it try to make and manage quality software?

>Gaming is one thing, fundamentally not understanding how engineering works will lead to shittier outcomes and cost the company in ways the management will never understand.

That means nothing to them: they jump ship and find another job just like devs do. The whole industry has been musical chairs for a while.

Misleading title: this article says it is seeking a budget increase, not that it's been approved

>The funding request, a dramatic surge from roughly $225 million a year earlier, signals a major shift in how the U.S. military plans to fight future wars, accelerating a move toward large numbers of lower-cost, AI-enabled systems.

The merits of this ask within this insane administration basically means nothing IMO. Hegseth could ask for cybernetic ponies with beer coolers and I wouldn't be surprised.

>What points towards bootstraping being impossible?

Even just the security concerns and having any confidence in the implementation is likely a specialized skill, so you'll need to convince someone to work for free or be able to pay them. Now do that for other major lines of work like UI/UX, Ops, and QA.

Take a look at all of the features from GitHub or any code platform that you'd need to get people to sign up these days (because they are used to GitHub/others) and it's a very tall list. Think something like https://www.enterpriseready.io/ but definitely larger (maybe 2x, 3x as large).

Oh and if someone writes a long rant about it and it gets to the top here, it likely becomes dead in the water, and you can't get the time back, making it a risky proposition. At least with VC money, you got paid a salary.

I'm not against rich people outright, but I am against the ones who try to pay people as little as possible sharing their views. And especially the views that contradict (working hard) how they got their wealth (not working hard) in the first place.

>My experience is that that plainly does not work.

The apprenticeship model isn't in practice at any scale in software, I don't see how you could believe that. Practically every career start is self-taught or university to junior positions which is not the high-attention, one-on-one focus you'd get.

>Why invest a lot of money and high-talent attention into someone who might quit?

What happens if you don't and they stick around? You might say 'well, I'd just fire them' but then you are going to have a culture of people always having one foot out the door. And a high amount of position switching in the industry has led us to what we have today where people don't really stay and build for the long-term, and shoddy code bases also drive people to quit.

An apprenticeship model also helps if you can do 3-5 year agreements for training where you see the most benefit from the person in the last 1-2 years.

As good as it has been for my career, switching often probably needs to slow down (while raises go up) and apprenticeships go into effect for better quality training.

All this assuming there isn't another major leap in AI competency though.

>It's almost impossible to turn someone from the latter group into the former.

Only if you're constrained by the same short-term thinking as US businesses. The way to do that is more of an apprenticeship model when someone observes/works closely with someone from the first group over years.

Even then, the businesses don't want to pay for that, and why should the workers give that away for free? They want people to churn out code because they've chosen to hire micromanagers that need constant updates and babysitting through communication.

You could have done this with Google search or Wikipedia or reading through books though

I'm sure every single telco in the world is perfectly in line with this

This kind of cool is just a phase. After a certain age, it really just looks like you don't want to try living life.

It's possible no one will care much if it's down even for that long. I couldn't care less if my HOA mobile app was down even for a week for example. We don't need constant uptime for everything.

No one's going to be able to afford that if you hollow out the consumer base by replacing people with AI

>That it's all about cost-cutting?

Cost cutting has less uncertainty than making something new, so they do that first. If something else comes along, then great.

This is also why the people should make the transition as difficult as possible for companies doing layoffs when the companies are paying proportionally very little in taxes compared to the people they are laying off.

That shit will get hacked so fast once all of the pentesters, security analysts, and developers are out of work and start getting hungry.

One step at a time

If they ever find out they've been duped, they'll certainly go out of their way to make something worse down the line at the expense of the people.

These are the kind of short-sighted tactics that competition and capitalism breeds that belongs in luxury markets, not utilities or essentials.

Apart from the current administration's absolutely hilariously bad governing, the US economy really only cares about profit. The same is going to happen to any country with outsized income inequality.

>The “time” refers to a day of life for anyone, at any age and in any circumstance — not just the hours worked by someone with a job.

So it's how much you earn per day divided by 24, or maybe by yearly earnings and hours per year

And we're still here right? We have more books and knowledge and capabilities than ever. Despite theoretically losing knowledge along the way, we're okay (mostly).

Society can replace the systems it relies on. The replacement might not be the best, but it'll probably handle things until we can reinvent a newer, better system. It probably won't be easy, but you can't convince me that humanity suddenly cannot adapt and fix problems right in front of them. How long does history have us doing that?

These are extraordinary claims that all of society will just become dumb and not be able to do any of this. History is also littered with people fretting about the next generation not being smart enough or whatever, and those fears rhyme pretty closely with what we're talking about here.