rglover

That's not my framing, that's literally what happened/is happening.

> This framing of a zero sum game is counterproductive.

I agree but that's not at all what I was getting at. Quite the opposite. The mistake America made, what made it vulnerable, was playing everything like a zero sum game. We're in the early days of that behavior coming to roost.

China played the smart long game and took advantage of America's ignorance and short-sighted thinking. They already "won" in the sense that they outmaneuvered the U.S. because they relied on flaws in human nature (specifically, greed). Their moves around AI are just more of the same clever behavior.

I don't agree with all of their means for getting here, but to accomplish what they have in ~30 or so years [1] should blow minds far more than it does in the West. And they did it by convincing us to give them control of our manufacturing and selling us (literal) boatloads of cheap junk. Historians will look back on this era as one of the greatest demonstrations of "winning without firing a single shot."

This whole insular POV is tired, ignorant, and frankly just another indicator that America has lost the plot, shit-faced on its own arrogance.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_GDP_of_China

Whoever prompted the agent, whoever supplied the means, whoever knew but didn't say anything.

Both. This should result in criminal charges.

This is a wonderful analogy.

That reads far too much like science fiction to me. As for how we could "not be outsmarted:" we're the ones prompting and controlling it. There is no blind autonomy here (and if there is in some pseudo sense, just unplug the damn thing). This isn't a Johnny Depp movie despite how desperately many want it to be.

Right. And that's not accidental.

No one. But we can take a wild guess that experiments are being done in this direction. And that requires intent and system design that enables the behavior to even happen (i.e., a finger on the trigger).

Just like a gun requires someone to pull the trigger, AI requires someone to prompt it (or kick off the initial loop).

Because they're being put far too close to residential areas. The way they're being designed and built, they actually are an enemy [1]. Nobody wants to live next to that.

[1] https://youtu.be/RAliBRyq_1c?is=iYxwnVjT8No9qm8-

I think the middle way is best here: use AI so you understand how best to apply it to your work but don't deprive yourself of the joy of doing stuff by hand. And if you so desire: just write by hand.

Very unlikely to apply to any job moving forward (i.e., they've equated AI with a competitive advantage, even if the results are not technically competitive), but a job isn't you and you are not a job. And if you're like me, where building stuff is your business, I highly recommend using your skills to build something that makes money (without freaking out about how the thing is built) and then use that to pay for your life and work on code however you'd like in the off hours.

Frustrating? Absofuckinglutely. But you can either spin out or keep progressing, however slowly. My wife and I have been talking about a growing renaissance movement as people where we live (normal, everyday people) go in on other locals for using AI for stuff. Just saw one on Reddit the other day where a local venue got chewed out for using AI for their event flyer.

That doesn't mean AI goes away or everyone "wakes up," but it does mean that it's not this universally loved thing. I personally think that will be the shape of the future too: some places in the world will be all-in while others will opt-out. If you truly want to be a pure craftsman, it's worth looking for where those places and people are and consider relocating. Environment has a huge impact on your ability to think well and clearly; don't underestimate proximity to AI making it seem more threatening than it actually is (and don't just dismiss that as delusion or wishful thinking).

Also don't forget: the economics of AI are unhealthy and this first wave of AI will likely be washed out, followed by a "plateau of productivity" for a few survivors (think how the internet looked from ~2002-2009). Again, just my opinion but I don't think the overall outlook is terrible if you don't allow yourself to be disconnected from your craft and find others who feel the same.

I won't repeat it here but Cartman getting updates from Alec Baldwin is easily one of their all time greatest bits.

Surprised but not surprised. That explains a lot.

The future isn't found in consensus or groups.

Oh, to be a corporate puppet [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmuEIRY9VUg

I can always tell when someone uses an LLM to write and never gave the LLM proper context on how to write (i.e., writing samples, skills files specific to writing, etc). These are also the people who tend to complain about AI's writing style.

You can get pretty good results if you take the time to tune it. Tropes and the like still sneak in but if you take the time to edit and rework things, it ends up being a pretty good workflow (especially for stuff that's more procedural, not artistic).

> But honestly if you’re the one proposing a “simple solution” maybe do some research yourself.

It's an off the cuff idea on a nerd forum. Relax buddy.

It's a simple multiplier number and you can set a cap on it (and payout amounts). Where's the fire?

It doesn't have to. Just put a cap and say "we officially recognize 1-10" and be done with it.

They should just multiply a base rate against the severity level. Say the base rate is ranged so low-severity stuff is $500-1K base but high-severity stuff is $10K base. That would net a researcher ~$88K for this specific bug (8.8 severity).

I read a news report on the study that was linked, yes. But my issue isn't with the researchers/their process, it's with how this is presented in the headline vs. what the actual reason was backing the claim.

There's nothing to "do better" about; you just don't like my opinion (and that's perfectly fine).

> there's too much ground to cover for any one person to do well at all of it.

If I can do it, others can do it, too. I even built an entire full-stack framework (w/ a custom components system + Node.js back-end), deployment system, database, and CSS framework (and now those all run my businesses). When I started, I didn't have the slightest clue beyond some basic HTML and CSS. I think people limit themselves too much trying to fit into the narrow containers of a job title/description. I get why, but it's worth asking yourself what else you're capable of beyond your job if you're eager to learn.

Yep. I don't know why this is so hard for teams to understand: if the part your customers pay you to interact with (the UI/UX) doesn't fucking work, your customers are going to leave.

We need to kill this two-party-system-brain crap and siloing front end and back end. Learn both. It isn't difficult. It allows you to design much better systems that avoid complexity and unreliability.

> Using a large database of (deidentified) medical records, the researchers compared the outcomes of people taking a GLP-1 for their type 2 diabetes to people taking other common diabetes drugs between 2017 and 2025. GLP-1 users were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with TB for up to a five-year span, they found.

This is incredibly manipulative. So, we're going to ignore all other factors that may have played into this and just assume it was due directly to GLP-1 use?

All things pass. The question is what the fallout will look like for everyone who doesn't have their hand in the cookie jar.

> the terroir, does it even exist, has it ever even existed in america?

Not in the romantic sense and I'd imagine mostly ending in an Into the Wild kind of fate if at all.

That said, if you're living in a more rural area, it's not terribly difficult to cultivate a little patch of that experience for yourself.

It will never be picture perfect, but you can selectively engage with technology (and society) to an extent that you protect—at the very least—the little allotment you find yourself responsible for stewarding.

It requires a reorientation away from a default validation of a highly technical society (both in the literal sense and the Jacques Ellul [1] sense). But until they replace all of the countryside with data centers, it's still within reach. May require some creativity and sweat but it's still out there.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Technological_Society

Putting in blockers and the like helps, but what I've found worked best was to consider this quote by Anthony DeMello:

"When you fight something, you're tied to it forever. As long as you're fighting it, you’re giving it power."

When I learned to stop feeling bad/guilty/thinking this was a problem to solve and just let my mind drift, I found that my mind naturally learned when it was disciplined work time vs. browse the internet time. Personally, I noticed that when I didn't have any artificial restriction, I was less inclined to waste time on those things.

In practice: "oh, my mind doesn't want to do that other thing right now but it does want to go look at this thing; let it." The more I've loosened my grip, the less distractions have affected my productivity.

Location: Tennessee, USA

Remote: Preferred

Willing to relocate: Travel to office, yes; Permanent relocation, no.

Technologies: JavaScript/TypeScript (any frameworks), Node.js, HTML, CSS, UI/UX design, AI/Agents, Sysadmin

Résumé/CV: https://ryanglover.net/resume

Email: me@ryanglover.net

I'm good at cleaning up messes and saving money/reputations. Best suited for wrangling brownfield projects that have jumped the shark, or, ensuring that a greenfield project doesn't go off the rails. I'm also a hybrid engineer/designer, so I can work within an existing design system, or, introduce something custom branded to your product/company.

Fun to work with, reliable, and no bs. Happy to collaborate with others or be left to my own devices to get the job done.

Recent work:

[1] https://fortivibe.com

[2] https://philosophercigars.com

They're making the smartest possible move: let others burn insane amounts of capital and time finding the quirks and once they see a viable lane, execute.

It's old Steve Jobs logic. Works backwards from the customer experience to the technology (they're the only big player I see doing this).