You know it's interesting, because with the right treatment and support, people with diabetes can live long, fulfilling lives. It's the same for depression. It does not matter if it's chronic or acute. There is no cure, it will never go away entirely. It can only be managed.
Elisha Long's content is not for me. I also don't think it's relevant to the topic of mental health.
Speaking from experience, I can say that when I prioritized adequate time to do activities I find challenging and enjoyable, that were deliberately unrelated to my work-life in any way, that my mental health improved.
The depression didn't disappear. But it became manageable.
There is no cure for depression. Like there is no cure for diabetes. There is a big difference between having the disease, and feeling sadness brought on by circumstances. There is no such thing as simply "removing the depression".
Software quality, i.e lack of bugs, from the average user's perspective, is a hygiene factor. High quality does not get rewarded, and the instant it crosses below the threshold of "good enough", users will punish you.
The eternal question for management seems to be "what can we get away with?".
A dev with quality problems in their output? Can em'.
A dev with exceptional quality in their output? Can em'.
A dev with just the right corners cut? Keep 'em, but no raise.
Is this regime right or fair? I don't think so, but it is the incentives that drive all of this.
I believe the only solution to this, at least in the for-profit software world, is to try to convince everyone to pay for quality. If the money is there, then maybe management will reward devs who care about quality user experiences.
I genuinely do not understand why people think my comment on this is a bad take.
I believe it is absolutely ridiculous to have token usage leader boards.
But isn't it also ridiculous for a rational human being to use as many tokens as possible regardless of whether or not that token usage is useful or valuable?
It seems obvious to me that AI service providers make more money the more tokens are used. It also seems obvious to me that companies who sell shovels during a gold rush stand to make a great deal of money, whether or not any gold is found. How is that a good thing writ large?
Anthropic, (and SpaceX), might IPO soon - a move that will grant them access to capital instantly. Capital that comes directly from the retirement plans of all of us.
All I'm saying is if you want to somehow sabotage the game somehow, this is definitely not the right strategy. Political influence would be far more effective.
I'm guessing you aren't invested in any of these stocks. I'm also guessing, to take the perspective of a tokenamxxing GenZ employee, that their bosses are.
Excessive token burning as a tactic to annoy your employer probably does the opposite - it probably makes your employer money.
The more tokens you burn, the more demand for hardware there will be. More demand for hardware means higher stock prices -> more money in your employer's pocket.
The only question is how long that can last. If taken to an extreme, the output of the AI will get worse over time, and if it gets bad enough, for long enough, people will use it less and less, and demand will slowly evaporate.
My point is NOT: I hope this all comes crashing down.
My point IS: tokenmaxing is bad. AND weaponizing it will not have the intended effect, but in fact, it will, in the short term, do the opposite.
Hacker news is not a representative subset of humanity. So you are restricting your range of understanding. Maybe that's necessary for mental health, (it is for me) but the tradeoff isn't great either.
In my mind this is what prototyping is for. Just get it working quickly and see if the concept has legs. But be prepared to completely re-write it because the "just make it work" mindset will make it more difficult to change and improve upon in the future.
But when you factor in today's favorite business model of "make it shitty", perhaps this matters very little.
Yes it is nauseating. And it's the norm. Whenever some company finds a way to make a boat-load of money by exploiting a weakness of human nature, the government will demand a portion of the proceeds. It's business as usual, in the USA at least. Even more nauseating is what they could do with that $2.5B...
Maybe they could use this DDoS attack as their 17th round technical interview. Any candidate who successfully mitigates the attack would then make it to the 18th round. Win win!
I was curious about this so I looked around a bit. My interpretation is that GrapheneOS still has not cracked this nut. Neither has iPhone, unless you enable "Lockdown Mode"