The OP quit, publicly, and the response (and your post) miss that entirely. They aren't interested in a personal chat, and they aren't inviting anyone to help them process their feelings. They've left, and told everyone why.
The laws have been selectively enforced and it has led us here, yes, and it does mean that broad support of the bureaucracy has justifiably waned.
Was it okay then, when it was a bureaucratic governing class encamping in the public coffers? Is it okay now, when it's a single vulture capitalist harvesting the public coffers?
Clearance is a process and it hasn't been obeyed, and the ultimate purpose of it is to both audit potential recipients and train them in security protocols. The president can't elude it, though he can pardon them for federal crimes, which they're committing a lot of.
This is philosophizing, and it isn't even on topic.
The laws are broken, so regardless of what you think "should" be legal, it isn't. They are being selectively enforced, though, and that's both the problem and probably the thing more worth your philosophical energy. Is that okay, when a criminal operation is too wealthy and influential to be held accountable?
It's always played out like this in software, by the way. Famously, animation shops hoped to save money on production by switching over to computer rendered cartoons. What happened instead is that a whole new industry took shape, and brought along with it entire cottage industries of support workers. Server farms required IT, renders required more advanced chips, some kinds of animation required entirely new rendering techniques in the software, etc.
A few hundred animators turned into a few thousand computer animators & their new support crew, in most shops. And new, smaller shops took form! But the shops didn't go away, at least not the ones who changed.
It basically boils down to this: some shops will act with haste and purge their experts in order to replace them with LLMs, and others will adopt the LLMs, bring on the new support staff they need, and find a way to synthesize a new process that involves experts and LLMs.
Shops who've abandoned their experts will immediately begin to stagnate and produce more and more mediocre slop (we're seeing it already!) and the shops who metamorphose into the new model you're speculating at will, meanwhile, create a whole new era of process and production. Right now, you really want to be in that second camp - the synthesizers. Eventually the incumbents will have no choice but to buy up those new players in order to coup their process.
Oh my, no. Fabrics and things made from fabrics remain largely produced by human workers.
Those textile workers were afraid machines would replace them, but that didn't happen - the work was sent overseas, to countries with cheaper labor. It was completely tucked away from regulation and domestic scrutiny, and so remains to this day a hotbed of human rights abuses.
The phenomenon you're describing wasn't an industry vanishing due to automation. You're describing a moment where a domestic industry vanished because the cost of overhauling the machinery in domestic production facilities was near to the cost of establishing an entirely new production facility in a cheaper, more easily exploitable location.
I agree it's a problem but it isn't incumbent on the 'x' peers to solve it. The burden of that goes to any supposed '10x'.
Long version:
I agree with you, though I would add that a superintellect at '10x' that couldn't look at the 'x' baseline of those around it and navigate that in an effective way (in other words, couldn't organize its thoughts and present them in a safe or good seeming way), is just plain not going to ever function at a '10x' level sustainably in an ecosystem full of normal 'x' peers.
I think the whole point of Stranger in a Strange Land is about this. The Martian is (generally) not only completely ascendant, he's also incredibly effective at leveraging his ascendancy. Repeatedly, characters who find him abhorrent at a distance chill out as they begin to grok him.
The reality is that this is an ecosystem of normal 'x' peers and the '10x', as the abnormality, needs to have "functional and effective in an ecosystem of 'x' peers" as part of its core skill set, or else none of us (not even the '10x' itself) can never recognize or utilize its supposed '10x' capacity.
I think maybe you ought to think about inverting your stance on this, because it's not necessarily virtuous to imagine that everyone repeating the same warning, over and over again, is due to some mysterious, inexplicable negativity. And it's not great to imagine that they don't know what they're talking about, or that they're just trying to scare people off with senseless FUD. Or that they didn't actually run into the problems they say they did. Or that they don't know the root cause.
Maybe a better question to be curious about is this: What can Elm do about the (self-evident in these comments, IMO) fact that a bunch of devs who really like it, feel like it's a bad choice? And, what SHOULD Elm do about that?
If a bunch of people think it's a tool foreboding enough to warn others off of it, and in the same thread some of those same people are saying they really liked that tool and wish they didn't have to do that, what benefit are you really getting from just dismissing their feedback?
Outspoken feedback is rare, just calling it negativity and paying it no mind rhymes a lot with the way Elm, writ large, has behaved. It's not indicative of a tool or ecosystem that wants to foster growth or continue development. That's part of the problem.
I like to think of it as `view, effects = fn(state, events)`, where effects are any subsequent events or instructions that come out of a state change. I think of it very close to how you're outlining it here, though, and when I'm thinking of effects I'm generally also thinking of it as a set of things that can fit into an event stream like you're outlining.
In this case, "community is moving in that direction" means that over the last 3+ years, a significant amount of middleware and tooling has grown in the Tower ecosystem, which Axum is based on. So the network effect is the draw here, not a hype cycle.
No, I definitely get that. Where your data is, or is not, has no relevance to a network member choosing to behave badly or harmfully against that network. Nor does it actually impact what they can do to the network itself. It simply provides you with durability concerning your identity.
That doesn't seem like a mitigation to what the poster above you said, to me. It just means that if I don't like it, I don't lose my posts when I move. That's nice but it offers no guarantees in the face of a corporate actor harming the overall federation of a network.
I wired things up using a Flux-like architecture, where the Store would periodically signal a data change and the component would render it, transitions and all. It all worked out pretty much as I expected.
Additionally, in the process of mimicking code, the only thing I could do was think about what I was writing - and in some cases I discovered that I would have done it differently than some of the libraries I use every day.
So Nintendo has not chosen to take their world-renowned franchises and use them to crop-share on iOS, and we're calling this a failure to capitalize on an opportunity?
I don't think I could disagree more.
These franchises are a tremendous draw and guarantee a large amount of device lock-in for Nintendo, presently. They have made the games Nintendo produces a renewable resource, where oftentimes the company can re-release game content with a newly polished engine and be critically acclaimed for it.
If Nintendo gives Apple any amount of access to these franchises, then the lock-in is diluted and so, consequently, is the Nintendo brand.
Not to mention that in exchange for diluting their brand and sacrificing their lock-in, they will also be diminishing their profits by 30%.
This is effectively just handing it over to Apple even though there is no obvious marketing or distribution advantage to having their applications available on iOS.
After all they'd lose from the arrangement, it almost feels ludicrous to suggest that Nintendo pay Apple for the honor of diminishing its brand, don't you think?