There is an interesting pattern emerging in this thread. There are a lot of 'same here' and 'opposite for me' comments, but both sides are converging on the same point: people developing software to solve a problem.
Many who are considering a career shift away from software due to 'AI disgust' devoted their lives to developing software because they loved the craft. But with AI churning out cheap, ugly, but passable code, it's clear that businesses never appreciated the craft. I hope these folks find an area outside of SWE that they love just as much.
But once these folks find this area, it would be naive to think they won't use software to scratch their itch. In the same way that people who didn't pursue a career in SWE (because they felt under-qualified) are using AI to solve their problems, these folks will now find their own problems to solve with software, even if at first that is not their intention. They probably won't use AI to write the code, but ultimately, AI is forcing everyone to become a product manager.
Yeah, but I think there is a space in the market for people who don't want/know how to manage their own API keys. Anyway, IMO Tweeks is not for most of the HN audience [EDIT: because there are alternatives like Magix or even Greasemonkey itself].
I believe the best scenario is a language that gives an AI the best environment to train itself in a manner similar to the way a game like Go gave AlphaGo the opportunity to play innumerable times against itself and study the results.
I think the best programming languages of the future will come with their own LLMs, synthetically trained before release.
That's telling about CSS design. Folks here on HN are talking about how they purposely ask LLMs about APIs that don't exist, and they hallucinate with a better and more intuitive design that they would come up with on their own.
I don't know the best solution for the problem, but CSS is a very convoluted one.
Fun fact: In Portuguese, the em dash is often used to introduce direct discourse, much like double quotes are used in English, but only when the direct discourse opens the paragraph. So instead of:
People treat SPA and MPA as oposing teams, one is the right way and the other is garbage. But this is not how it must be seen.
What we have is the natural way to do things with web stack (the way it's is mean to be used), and the "hacky way" (the way that let us do what we want to do, even when the web stack doesn't support it yet).
SPA is the hacky way today, but before it we had CGI, Java applets, Flash... And the web purists were always very vocal against the hacky way.
But the hacky way is what pushs the envelope of what the natural way can do. Every feature cited in the article that makes an MPA competitive with an SPA today only exists because of SPAs.
I'm on the side of preferencially use the web the way it's meant to use whenever it's possible, but I love to see what can be done when we are a little hacky, and it's awesome to see the web stack adapting to do these things in a less hacky way.
In fact, the most valuable resource on the internet is finite: atention with the possibility of influence those who give it to you. This is already a question of national security.
Even ignoring opinions not related to software, Stallman is still controversial; he's a radical advocate for software freedom. And FSF is a radical organization, too. People and institutions with radical positions are unlikely to achieve mainstream acceptance. But, radical positions are a needed influence in the ecosystem, helping to keep the balance. So, I think that after all FSF is a succesfull organization.
There is a specific mindset that makes someone want to learn Esperanto: curiosity, affinity for linguistics, ideals of a "world citizenship". I think this leads to a shared culture between two Esperantists, even if they are from different countries. (That's if you can find two of them.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20091015091833/http://www.hackle...