kjksf

What is your expectation, exactly?

In US you go to college for 4-5 years and pay $50k per year. Or more.

You pay to learn. A lot of money, a lot of time.

Then you get a job, where the idea is that you get paid for doing work and you expect the employer to do what?

You seem to expect that not only you won't be doing the things you're being paid to do but the employer will pay for your education on company's time.

How many weeks per year of time off do you expect to get from a company?

You'll either say a reasonable number, like 1 or 2, which is insignificant to the time you supposedly spent learnings (5 years). You just spend 250 weeks supposedly learning but 1 or 2 weeks a year is supposed to make a difference?

Or you'll say unreasonable number (anything above 2 weeks) because employment is not free education.

There's an argument to be made about bad incentives driving large public companies.

But it's way less satisfying that emotional appeals.

The base of your statement is just wrong.

A company is a legal fiction. It doesn't have thoughts, wants, desires. It's not rich or poor. It's a piece of paper. It's an entry in government database.

What is not a fiction is Oracle's owners i.e. shareholders.

They are not rich. Majority of them, either direct owner of stock or in-direct owners via pension plans etc. are like you and me. They are not rich and the price of Oracle shares can be a difference between them being able to pay rent today or being able to retire tomorrow.

Those people rightfully care about the share price.

The executive are correctly responding to wishes of owners of the company by managing it to make a profit and therefore keep the stock price high.

What in the above chain do you find objectionable?

That millions of Americans investing in public companies depend on and therefore care about stock price?

That management of public companies is correctly responding to demands of owners of those companies by managing companies for profit?

Or maybe you just want to skip to the end of the line and seize means of production from private citizens to bask in the warm glow of collectivism?

Misleading people is not ok.

It's so not ok that we have laws against misleading people. Not against this particular misleading (I don't think, although if Asimov had a formal estate they could probably sue).

I can't open "Tom Cruse's Fine Wine" because I'm not Tom Cruse. It's wrong morally but also illegal. We have laws against things like that and Tom Cruse would surely sue my ass, successfully. The proof of that is that there is no "Tom Cruse's **" businesses out there.

It might stop being illegal if the person dies because to sue you have to have standing. Unless there is formal trust like e.g. Tolkien's works and business affairs which probably have standing to sue "Tolkien's Fine Wine".

A child would also take offense on being mislead. Not this particular misleading because it only misleads people who know who Asimov is and like his books. Your hypothetical child doesn't.

But tell a child you'll buy him an ice cream if he finishes his chores and let's see how he reacts if you mislead him by not buying an ice cream.

You must have learnt this at some point.

In case of Asimov, forever.

To flip your rhetorical trick against you: would it be ok if they did it 1 year after death? If no, then I'm "interested in more detail about when the odiousness crosses into being socially acceptable for you".

To expose your rhetorical trick: you wanted him to admit that it's ok after SOME time therefore it's ok after THIS time. You put the burden of proof for defending THIS time (i.e. 34 years) as acceptable on him. Which is hard.

Sneaky but only if don't get exposed.

Because equally correct framing is: if you accept that it's NOT ok after SOME time (1 year) then the burden of proof for defending it's ok THIS time (i.e. 34 years) is on you.

So go ahead, tell us what is the exact number of years that makes it ok. Defend YOUR number the way you wanted him to defend his.

> port it in less than one day

There's confidence and there's barking mad delusion.

Here's the reality.

I once ported 50k loc from Java to Go. Here are details: https://blog.kowalczyk.info/article/19f2fe97f06a47c3b1f118fd...

Java => Go is easier than JavaScript => Go because languages are more similar. That was a very line-by-line port.

Because I was paid by hour I took detailed notes.

I spent 601 hours to port it.

50k / 601 = 83 lines ported per hour, 665 per 8 hour day, but really 500 per 6 working hours a day. No one does sustained 8 hours of writing code daily.

I would consider that very fast and yet order of magnitude slower than your 5.5 k per day.

10x is not a mis-estimation, it's a full blown delusion.

There's nothing I love more than unfounded arrogance.

How about you try to make a change to SumatraPDF code base.

Let's see how good of an engineer you are when you actually have to write a line of C++ code in complex codebase as opposed to commenting on a check in with an explanation of the issue and a fix.

Claude fixed this crash in a minute: https://gist.github.com/kjk/d22af052499f70a45708c311eef201ff

Why don't you tell me, smart man, what the fix it and how long it took you to figure out.

If you can do it in less than a day, then we can talk about how better of an engineer you are than me.

Fixing bugs is the goldilocks zone for ai. Especially if you have a test that the agent can use to test their fix.

AI is not a junior developer, as some analogise, but Rain Man. Ultra autistic entity that can chew through way more logical conditions that you.

As long as you can describe the bug well ai will likely fix it. Logs help.

Let me give you specific example.

Here's a fix made by claude to my SumatraPDF: https://github.com/sumatrapdfreader/sumatrapdf/commit/a571c0...

I have a crash reporting system that sends me crash information in text file: callstack of crashed thread, basic os info and logs of this execution.

The way I (well, claude) fixed this bug is: I said "analyze crash report: <paste crash report>" and it does it in under a minute.

Recently I've fixed at least 30 bugs with this process (you can view recent checkins).

Those are crashes that I found hard to fix because even though by human standard I'm both expert developer and expert Windows API developer.

But I'm not an autistic machine that can just connect the dots between how every windows api works and how it ties to the callstack and information from the log, in under a minute.

The issue is lack of money not lack of legal structure.

Consider ffmpeg. You can donate via https://www.ffmpeg.org/spi.html

How much money do they make from donations? I don't know but "In practice we frequently payed for travel and hardware."

Translation: nothing at all.

If such a fundamental project that is a revenue driver for so many companies, including midas-level rich companies like Google, can't even pay decent salaries for core devs from donations, then open source model doesn't work in terms of funding the work even at the smallest possible levels of "pay a reasonable market rate for devs".

You either get people who just work for free or businesses built around free work by providing something in addition to free software (which is hard to pull off, as we've seen with Bun and Astral and Deno and Node).

I don't remember GitHub or Amazon advocating MIT over GPL.

Feel free to prove me wrong by pointing out this massive amount of advocacy from "mega-clouds" that changed people's minds.

The ads, the mailing list posts, social media comments. Anything at all you can trace to "mega-clouds" execs.

No because you don't understand what Andreessen means by reflection / introspection.

He obviously thinks you should learn from your mistakes and that you must be an avid and quick learner.

But learning skills is not what introspection / dwelling is.

It's spending times on thoughts like "what should I be doing with my life". "I can't believe how much of a victim of the system I am".

And he specifically contrasted it against doing stuff.

Writing code >>> walks in the woods.

Obviously reflection is necessary to recognize mistakes of the past. What Andreessen was talking about that you should spent majority of your time acting not reflecting. Not that you should spent 0 time reflecting.

Does it matter?

If HN gets invaded by people who want to discuss cooking and start submitting and upvoting cooking articles and HN turns into cooking discussion website? And once they get majority, they'll change the rules to make it exclusively about cooking.

It's still people, just different people. People who like cooking vs. people who like technology and startups.

There's no philosophical conundrum.

Do you want HN to be colonized by cooking people or not? That is the question.

I don't.

We need to stand our ground and repel colonizers who want to change the character of HN. Our unity is our strength.

I'm a hacker. I find cooking interesting. Stories about cooking belong on HN.

Do you now see that it doesn't work like this?

This is not a satire?

putflix is criminal theft. They pay nothing to people who make movies. You can drive the cost to zero by downloading torrents directly from pirate bay.

If you did want to pay the artists then you would pay for netflix of rent/buy from a number of places (amazon video, youtube, apple).

Your cryptocurrency fantasy is just a way to rationalize stealing.

Go designers distinguish between Go language as defined by Go spec and implementation details.

//go:fix is something understood by a particular implementation of Go. Another implementation could implement Go without implementing support for //go:fix and it would be a fully compliant implementation of Go, the language.

If they made it part of the syntax, that would require other implementations to implement it.

The statement wasn't: "no one ever vibe codes an alternative to product X"

It was: "With sufficiently advanced vibe coding the need for certain type of product just vanishes."

If a product has 100 thousand users and 1% of them vibe codes an alternative for themselves, the product / business doesn't vanish. They still have 99 thousand of users.

That was the rebuttal, even if not presented as persuasively and intelligently as I just did.

So no, it's not the case of "both things being true". It's a case of: he was wrong.

Since 1947 US has been involved in 5 major wars (Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afganistan, Iraq).

Which begs the question: do you think it's more "moral" to wage wars and lie to public that you're in the business of defense OR say things that are truthful?

Spending trillion+ dollars on military is about the only thing that both political party agree on. Obama bombed more countries that most presidents.

Since we're talking about adults thinking like children: your simplistic ideas about what military should be have no effect on what it is.

If Iran had the firepower superiority over Israel and U.S. they would level both countries. This is no me saying. "Death to America" is a literal quote from now-dead ayatollah.

When you actually listen why they renamed DoD to DoW it's way more nuanced that you apparently believe.

One of the reasons is that political correctness is destructive in military. If you're actually at war, winning should be objective not PR optics.

And it seems to be working. See disaster of Afghanistan withdrawal compared to astonishing success of snatching Maduro and destroying Iran's capability to wage future wars.

Good lord. WebAssembly was sold as "portable assembly for the web". It's in the fricking name. Web. Assembly. Assembly for the web.

It was supposed to solve the problem of: some computers run x86, some arm, we need something that is equivalent, but portable across different cpus

What business is it for WebAssembly to know about complex types? What x86 instructions is there for `(type $t (struct i32))` ? Or doing garbage collection.

We would be better off standardizing on a subset of x86 and writing translators to arm etc. Or standardize on arm and translate to x86.

We know it can work. Apple did it with rosetta. Microsoft did it with Prism. I don't think WebAssembly implementation generate faster code than rosetta or prism.

QEMU did it simply (albeit slowly).

WebAssembly is becoming another JVM. It's not simple. It's not fast. It's not easy to use.

But now we're stuck with it and the only path is to add and add and add.

> No matter what load you have, P99 and especially P99.9 latency will be higher than any other language

I strongly call BS on that.

Strong claim and evidence seems to be a hallucination in your own head.

There are several writeups of large backends ported from node/python/ruby to Go which resulted in dramatic speedups, including drop in P99 and P99.9 latencies by 10x

That's empirical evidence your claim is BS.

What exactly is so unfair about Go scheduler and what do you compare it to?

Node's lack of multi-threading?

Python's and Ruby's GIL?

Just leaving this to OS thread scheduler which, unlike Go, has no idea about i/o and therefore cannot optimize for it?

Apparently the source of your claim is https://github.com/php/frankenphp/pull/2016

Which is optimizing for a very specific micro-benchmark of hammering std-lib http server with concurrent request. Which is not what 99% of go servers need to handle. And is exercising way more than a scheduler. And is not benchmarking against any other language, so the sweeping statement about "higher than any other language" is literally baseless.

And you were able to make a change that trades throughput for P99 latency without changing the scheduler, which kind of shows it wasn't the scheduler but an interaction between a specific implementation of HTTP server and Go scheduler.

And there are other HTTP servers in Go that focus on speed. It's just 99.9% of Go servers don't need any of that because the baseline is 10x faster than python/ruby/javascript and on-par with Java or C#.

It's not that complicated: statistics matter.

5% of people create 90% of the crime. Double 5% to 10% and you double the crime. Make it 50% and and you 10x the crime.

You still have 50% of non-criminals but society with 50% criminals has way more crime than society with 5% criminals.

You might say high-crime society is much worse than low-crime society even though they both have individuals that are criminals and non-criminals.

Replace "crime" with "trust" and you understand high-trust vs. low-trust society. They both have individuals with various levels of trust, but emergent behavior driven by statistics creates a very different society.

> there's no difference between "truly creative work" and "truly creative and profitable work"

To state the obvious, the difference is "profit".

Also I don't see you're bringing the "true scottsman" judgement here. What's the difference between "creative" and "truly creative" work. Who gets to decide what is "truly creative" vs. merely "creative".

We did in fact say so.

https://www.carltonfields.com/insights/publications/2025/no-...

> No Copyright Protection for AI-Assisted Creations: Thaler v. Perlmutter

> A recent key judicial development on this topic occurred when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case of Thaler v. Perlmutter on March 2, 2026, effectively upholding lower court rulings that AI-generated works lacking human authorship are not eligible for copyright protection under U.S. law

If I put my signature on Picasso painting, it doesn't make me co-author of said painting.

Blanchard is very clear that he didn't write a single line of code. He isn't an author, he isn't a co-author.

Signing GitHub commit doesn't change that.

Anyone can buy STRC with 10-11% yield, paid monthly. Full liquidity (i.e. can sell anytime).

5% return is not competitive.

There is one: click top right icon for menu, "Light mode".

It does tend to lose it on refresh, which is bad.

> According to the most recent polling (Ipsos, 6–10 February 2026), two-thirds (67%) of Britons believe the total number of people coming into the UK is too high

Do you have different data or different definition of majority?

I was taught that 67% is majority + 16% but maybe leftist math is different.

Poland has almost zero immigration and is one of the fastest European economies.

Do explain the miracle of Poland. What kind of economics work for Poland but couldn't possibly work for England.

Do explain how 41 thousand unskilled young man landing in UK shores via small boats are good for economy. Majority of them do no work, not even the low skill jobs. They cost UK citizens a lot of money because UK gov took upon themselves to pay for their housing and food.

The same stats are in every country that allowed massive immigration: the immigrants are a massive drain on resources of the country. And those resources are 100% come from taxing labor of citizens.

Currently UK pays for housing 100 thousand immigrants.

It's pretty obvious that if they stopped paying for housing them, they would save a lot of money.

Properly managed immigration could, in theory, be a net positive for countries.

But as it stands now if you combine immigration with well fare, you get a net drain.

First, they didn't have to.

Crazy idea: educate more people, lower barriers to entry, hire people from poorer western countries and not Africa.

Poland has hospitals staffed 100% by Polish people. What prevents UK from doing the same?

Second, if immigration was only for skilled workers to plug shortages of certain skills, it would not be a problem.

It's a problem because in 2025 estimated 41 thousand unskilled people, mostly young men, landed in UK just via small boats.

Those are not doctors or nurses or engineers or even fruit pickers. They are unemployed and therefore a massive drain on British resources.

UK gov for some unexplained reason decided that they are responsible for housing and feeding them. The money comes from taxing UK citizens.

The housing is zero sum game so it also comes from depriving some UK citizens, driving up the prices.

And those people get sick too so they also take away hospital resources from UK citizens.

And they don't work so you now have mostly young males loitering in neighborhoods.

UK pays for free housing of 110 thousand immigrants. And that's just one of the many well fare benefits.

But when they face deficit, they raise taxes instead of, crazy idea, not spending billions of money taken from UK citizens to provide free housing and food for foreigners.

UK citizens are rightfully pissed off that their life is getting worse.

That's not the social contract and being pissed off about that is not racism. It's self preservation.

The same happens in Spain, Germany, France, Italy.

That's your big mystery of why AfD or Reform UK are popular: because the parties currently in power are flat out refusing to implement clear desires of their voters.

That's how democracy is supposed to work: AfD and Reform UK and Le Pen are gaining because they are promising to implement the desires of citizens of German, UK or France.

The only meaningful action would be to stop well fare for immigrants. You don't work, you don't have money.

Madness is for UK government to tax UK citizens to pay for housing and food of immigrants.

Incentives drive behavior. If you're African and see you can live for free in England, of course you'll try to get that deal. And in age of social media, they know.

Denmark did that and saw dramatic drop in number of people trying to immigrate there.

What you desperately try to paint as racism is just immune response from UK citizens.

They can see their taxes are raising, gov services are getting worse but gov finds the money to pay for housing for 110 thousand immigrants.

They connect the dots and that's why Reform UK would win the elections (if the elections were done today).

Because Labour, which won election recently with good majority, is not, in fact, ignoring voters and not doing anything meaningful.

Reform UK promises drastic changes because that's what majority of UK votes are demanding now.

It's how democracy is supposed to work. The politicians are supposed to be responsive to demands of voters.

Based on what data?

The immigration we're talking about, the one of Africans etc. immigrants flooding west, is destructive to the economies based on pretty much every statistic I've seen.

Those immigrants are on welfare in disproportional numbers compared to native population.

E.g. in US 72% Somalis are on welfare and the same stats are in West Europe.

They cost the state gigantic amount of money.

And per-capita crime stats are so bad that governments are hiding them from public.

This is all documented by government's own statistics and reasonably well reported.

Immigration COULD be a net positive to the economy IF it was managed properly but it isn't and it isn't.

Tourism isn't immigration and I don't see what trade has to do with it.

Yes, we can.

But that's not what "hate speech" is code word for.

At this point in time any opinion to the right of extreme leftist ideology is considered by said leftist to be "hate speech".

Examples of "hate speech": criticism of muslims (but jews are ok), or minorities, or men playing in women's sport or breast amputation of 15yr olds, or immigration.

Nick investigating Somali fraud is racist and hateful.

The "hate speech" box is big enough that you can put a lot in it.

So yeah, we agree that there are limits to free speech. We agree that death threats cross the line.

But you tell me if we agree where that line is.

If you think there's such think as "hate speech" and it crosses the line, then we do not agree.