petersellers

Either way, people have options now. If one doesn't like the compromises of the thin phone, they can buy the thick phone. Seems silly to complain about the thinness if you're not the target demographic.

I find Silksong to be easier than at least Cuphead and Super Meat Boy, but I could totally see how one who isn't experienced with platformers may find it frustratingly challenging.

When dealing with timestamps, it's easiest to store and process them in UTC for as much of your code as possible. This means pretty much all of your backend and database code. Only convert these values from UTC to other timezones when presenting this data to the user (at that point, you'd need to take the user's timezone(s) into account).

There's a lot of assumptions being made in this comment and none of them are correct.

> Twitter/X is the reason DJT became President.

I really don't think so, at least not in isolation. It probably contributed a small part but the right wing media machine is multi-faceted. There were a lot of podcasters (i.e. Joe Rogan), comedians and youtubers all publicly in support of a second DJT presidency and I think that had a much bigger factor overall than Twitter.

Limits the blast radius to only the files that the more limited user has write access to.

It's still easier if you use virtual environments so infrequently that you have to look up how to do it every time.

Or: `uvx ruff`

Which one is easier to run, especially for someone who doesn't use python everyday?

> it’s always been done in that ENVs python shell .

What if you don't have an environment set up? I'm admittedly not a python expert by any means but that's always been a pain point for me. uvx makes that so much easier.

Hyper-V is a type 1 hypervisor, so Linux and Windows are both running as virtual machines but they have direct access to hardware resources.

It's possible that Apple has implemented a similar hypervisor here.

> In your own words, a project that would take 5-10 engineers is now feasible to be tackled with 1 or 2. Your own words.

That statement != lower demand for software engineers.

If a firm needs to perform project X that previously cost 10 engineers to do, but they only have the budget for 2, they will not tackle that project. Engineers used = 0.

However, if due to productivity enhancements with AI, the project can now be done with just 2 engineers, the company can now afford to tackle the project. Engineers used = 2.

That is the point that the person you were originally replying to was making.

> Even in your problem statement, "making software development easier" lowers demand.

Incorrect, as shown above.

> Even if you argue that some positions might open where none existed before, the truth of the matter is that at the core of your scenario lies a drop in demand for software engineers.

I see what you are trying to say, but it's not that clear cut. The fact is, no one knows what will actually happen to software engineering demand in the long run. Some scenarios will increase demand for engineers, others will decrease it. No one knows what the net demand will be, everyone is only guessing at this point.

I disagree strongly with this conclusion.

I've seen firsthand what happens to large software projects that collapse under their own weight of tech debt. The software literally could not function as intended - customers were lost, the product went under. Low quality being "expected" (which isn't true in my experience, either) is irrelevant when the software doesn't work at all.

The chances of all of that happening are a lot higher with a lone inexperienced engineer at the wheel. You still need experienced engineers to maintain your software, period.

> That's what is happening in the real world without LLMs entering the picture.

The difference is that most firms have experienced software engineers to fix those defects.

I didn't frame it that way - perhaps you are thinking of the person you replied to?

Nevertheless, I don't think they are trying to frame it that way, either. The point is that making software development easier can actually increase the demand of software engineers in some cases (where projects that were previously not considered due to budget constraints are now feasible).

If a business has the budget for 1 or 2 engineers though, they might be able to task them with work that previously required 5-10 engineers (in theory, anyways).

I'm not so sure that would work well in practice. How would the inexperienced developer know that the code created by the AI was correct? What if subtle bugs are introduced that the inexperienced developer didn't catch until it went out into production? What if the developer didn't even know how to debug those problems correctly? Would they know that the code they are writing is maintainable and extensible, or are they just going to generate a new layer of code on top of the old one any time they need a new feature?

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it.

"AI" is not going to wholesale replace software development anytime soon, and certainly not within a year's time because of the reasons I mentioned. The way you worded your post made it sound like you believed that capability was already here - nevertheless, whether you think it's here now or will be here in a year, both estimates are way off IMO.

If replacing Jira is really as easy as you claim, then it would have happened by now. At the very least, we'd be getting hit by a deluge of HN posts and articles about how to spin up your very own project management application with an LLM.

I think that this sentiment, along with all of the hype around AI in general, is failing to grasp a lot of the complexity around software creation. I'm not just talking about writing the code for a new application - I'm talking about maintaining that application, ensuring that it executes reliably and correctly, thinking about the features and UX required to make it as frictionless as possible (and voice input isn't the solution there, I'm very confident of that).

The person you are replying to isn't claiming that the seller pays the tariffs, they are saying that it's not in the seller's interest to notify buyers of the tariff charge because it's essentially free anti-tariff messaging once buyers are hit with the sudden fees.

> as for Spotify: https://bit.ly/samson_music

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here - that this website is comparable to Spotify? Even if you are talking about just the "core experience", this example supports the opposite argument that you are trying to make.

I don't have friends for the sake of "having friends". I choose the people I want to hang out with because I enjoy their company and like/respect them. Being around them makes me happy.

Similarly, people I dislike (rude or mean people, for example) make me unhappy when I'm around them. Cutting them out of my life is a net benefit there too, because I'm happier without them.

That is far different (and much less severe) than the original claim of accelerationism that was being made earlier.

> Lots options. All require a united front.

So in other words "no options" because we will never have a unified front in the legislative branch.

The USG is pretty old at this point, so that's not too surprising. I wonder if their newer hardware suffers from the same issues.

I had to check your account to see whether it was made just for this comment. Well done!

> The audience of people that would get a Steam Deck and then emulate Switch games is so small that this is a no-issue for Nintendo

Given how Nintendo handled the situation with Ryujinx and Yuzu, they clearly thought it was an issue for them.

Not true in New York, where this particular trial took place. From your own link:

  S 380.30 Time for pronouncing sentence.

  In general. Sentence must be pronounced without unreasonable delay.
  Court to fix time. Upon entering a conviction the court must:
  (a) Fix a date for pronouncing sentence; or
  (b) Fix a date for one of the pre-sentence proceedings specified in article four hundred; or
  (c) Pronounce sentence on the date the conviction is entered in accordance with the provisions of subdivision three.

So not only is sentencing distinct from conviction semantically, it's also distinct legally in the state of New York.

> The person in question, Trump, was not sentenced and therefore not "convicted" of anything.

Sentencing != conviction. Conviction is the legal finding of guilt, sentencing is the appropriation of punishment.

Given your excessive use of scarequotes around "facts", getting this simple fact wrong is ironic.

> The point being, you can't just assume corporate taxes are always paid by the rich or the owners of the company.

I was just pulling the numbers off of the source you gave. I'm not sure what methodology they used to compute those numbers.

> Income inequality has very little to do with tax rates

Sorry, I meant wealth inequality. I agree with you that the wealth/income inequality we're seeing is mostly driven by the actual incomes of the rich vastly outpacing the middle/lower classes - what I meant is that a higher progressive tax rate should be deployed in order to help correct that problem.

> The increased deficit spending is because the government is spending more money

Yes, I'm aware. Again what I meant is that if we're going to continue to spend at the levels we are, and wealth inequality continues to grow at the rate it has, then it makes sense to increase the tax rate on the highest brackets.

> But there weren't higher tax rates --

There were though - according to your source.

> So the time they'd be getting rich isn't back then, it's right now

No argument there - but again my point is that they aren't getting rich from increased government taxes, they are getting rich by lobbying/regulatory capture.

Thank you for clarifying and providing that source, it's very informative.

The numbers I was looking at before were referring to the overall tax rate, which included both income tax and corporate taxes. With that said, the overall tax rate for the top 1% has gone down significantly since 1950 (from 45ish percent down to 32ish percent). As you mentioned, that is mainly due to the lower corporate income tax rate.

Given that drop in the overall tax rate (along with rising income inequality and increasing debt spending), it seems clear to me that the income tax rate was not raised enough to compensate for that loss but that's a separate discussion.

All this to say that - my original point that the rich were effectively taxed higher back then still stands, and government bureaucrats were not getting rich off of the higher tax rates either (that was a response to the person I originally replied to, not you)

Federal Receipts as a percent of GDP doesn't address my point whatsoever.

GDP is not income. Federal receipts aggregated across all tax brackets provides zero information about what the highest tax bracket paid.