A note from the original author, possibly even a minor nerd celebrity, expressing surprise at this making the HN page and gratitude for those that rediscovered and reposted it.
I won't debate this. I'm a fan of the enduring pipe operator and the simple elegance of process composition in *nix. My point was more: what will we need them for? To review code written by a bot? GUI tools are better for this IMHO, or at least, terminals aren't any better than GUI tools, possibly worse. To read the plan output of Claude code, why would I want raw markdown in a terminal when I can read the formatted output as intended in a different tool?
To be clear, I'm not suggesting "the future is IDEs/GUI/etc" but that it's some potentially new refinement over TUIs and GUIs where the focus is no longer on editing, tinkering, debugging, but perhaps new tools that make it easier and efficient to work with agent swarms and give them instruction/prompts.
I'm not convinced that terminal orientedness of AI tooling itself will last. My hypothesis is that it was chosen by developers of the current generation building for developers of the current generation. I hypothesize that there is a future where command lines and terminals don't matter, and hence I feel the focus will shift to, as the author points out, to planning, reviewing and ideation tools none of which demands a command line. In fact I expect an entirely new class of tool to emerge that does these things well that is neither an IDE nor terminal based. I think Claude Code's core will live but it's interface will morph in the coming years to adapt to the builders of the next generation. The analogy I use is my kids and manual transmission cars -- they grow up with EVs and single gear drives with linear torque curves, and will have no nostalgia for a manual transmission, engine noises, or supercharger whines. If you never used a terminal, will you pine for it?
Isn't there a point at which it trains itself on these various outputs, or someone somewhere draws one and feeds it into the model so as to pass this benchmark?
Can someone enlighten me as to what the debate here is really about? Is the concern that the implementers of age gating could steal data? Is it that one entity (the "government") would obtain information about your age, etc? Doesn't this already happy IRL? Why is an online version suddenly more draconian?
As a parent, here is my perspective:
- there is no debate about seat belts in cars. I'm not choosing whether or not my child should or should not wear them
- there is no debate about ID checking outside businesses that sell alcohol. No one is debating whether I should get to choose whether my 7 year old has alcohol or not
- pornographic content on television is already banned and we have ratings for media content
- etc
Why are "privacy" and "freedom" arguments for age-gating of internet content? As a parent, it is impossible for me to gate access or exposure to internet content like 4chan or YouTube conspiracy theorists and what not on my kids' developing brains so some mandated help sounds common sensical. And busy, poor, or uninitiated parents may not have time to invest in something like self-driven internet censoring, and I believe society as a whole benefits when every child is automatically kept safe from unsavory content (by definition a subjective phrase yet a moral choice every society must make).
I can see an argument for mandating that every parent must individually purchase an in home internet age-gating "device" (hardware, software or whatnot) as a compromise so that the gating is still done by the parent (possibly with the help of a third party of their choice) while the mandation is done by the government. But it seems overly heavy handed in the other direction to me to say everything everywhere should be accessible to everybody of every age without gating and left to individuals (often sometimes with poor, underdeveloped, or temporarily ill-advised) judgment.
Looking for someone to change my mind on some of these (or links to studies or articles making the arguments pro-freedom in this context). I'll also virtue-signal for context, that I'm fully aware of and actively mourn the ill effects of corporations like Meta, etc that vacuum up our data and build profiles and sell to data brokers, etc.
This is depressing and not going to stop because it is so lucrative and relatively easy for these malware companies to find victims. It makes me wonder if cybersecurity should be considered a state responsibility and infrastructure so it will be uniform and available for every business like electricity or police protection.
Mason America | Lead Devops Engineer | US/Seattle | Full-time, onsite | https://www.bymason.com
Mason (YC W'16) is mobile IaaS that enables businesses to automate deployment of their own Android-based device ecosystems. Think AWS but for devices. We turned profitable in 2018, raised Series A in 2019, and are growing organically. Still an intimate team of 10 engineers in Seattle.
We're looking for a SRE/devops lead to own and evolve the cloud infra for Mason. Cloud stack is Golang/K8S/EKS mixed with Node.js/Ansible/Terraform/EC2, with several new services needing to be architected over the next few years. You have prior experience with building and scaling infrastructure, ideally understand AWS/EKS well, and think about ways to empower your team to ship early and often.
Our process: Phone screen => Take-home (or share existing body of work) => In-person architecture/design/soft skills => Offer (we adjust/shorten based on the candidate, and have been skipping the take-home step in favor of one in-person coding interview in many cases)
> I am not a whatsapp fanboy, but I strongly doubt that these flaws were designed, and to call them "backdoors" is hyperbole.
Well after listening to the Darknet diaries podcast regularly, and reading about Stuxnet, I'm pretty convinced nothing is outside the realm of possibility and we doubt these things at our own peril.
The Telegram author may be biased, but learning these facts is still useful. I'm in the same boat re: Signal - want to use it more broadly but can't get others to....
Mason America | Backend, Devops, Full Stack, Android/Embedded Software Engineers | Seattle | Full Time | https://www.bymason.com
We're building "mobile infrastructure as a service" that enables businesses to automate deployment of their own Android-based device ecosystems. Think AWS but for devices.
We're pretty small at the moment, have revenue, and are poised to grow. We're looking for people to take on the following engg roles:
* Ownership of our backend architecture (currently Node.js on AWS)
* Ownership of our devops story (involving both backend services as well as Android build infrastructure among other things)
* Own and evolve our Android fork (Mason OS) and help unify it across a variety of devices (a la LineageOS/CyanogenMod)
* Build end to end web apps to realize features around large-scale device management, ordering, inventory management, etc.
Our tech spans the gamut from Android OS customization, apps, CLI tools, backend services, devops and web dashboards all the way through to device provisioning automation and optimal sourcing of hardware through our network of manufacturers.
We're looking for engineers that have 2+ years of direct, hands-on experience in the space you're applying for, or in a related area that translates over.
Please include your resume and a cover letter answering (in brief) "Why you?" and "Why Mason?". You can contact us directly at (hiring -at- bymason.com); we'll personally review your application. Please know that we look at all resumes but may take a little time to shortlist as we are a small hands-on team.
Our process: Phone interview => Work on take-home/async problem and/or share your existing body of work => In-person => Offer. We adjust/shorten based on the candidate.
> "The Voyager flight team dug up decades-old data and examined the software that was coded in an outdated assembler language, to make sure we could safely test the thrusters," said Jones, chief engineer at JPL.