I don't think I understand what your point is? Are you implying that the US should have what? Stayed in Afghanistan forever? What solution would you have proposed there?
I think you're out of touch with what "almost everyone" considers an acceptable standard of living. I know plenty of people who have a single car or none at all, live in apartments living pay check to pay check with no kids at all because they are afraid they can't afford them. They would love to have what you described, minus the no cell phones/internet.
I thought it was more 'social media for people that don't like normal social media'. It's not being advertised too on a social media platform and seeing things/interactions that you actually care about and/or are interested in (generally speaking at least).
That seems to be especially true on HN. Other forums there is some of that as well, but HN it seems nearly every single comment section is like 75% (random number) pointing out faults in the posted article.
If you're doing it yourself, learn Ansible, you'll do it once and be set forever.
You do not need "managed" database services. A managed database is no different from apt install postgesql followed by a scheduled backup.
Genuinely no disrespect, but these statements really make it seem like you have limited experience building an HA scalable system. And no, you don't need to be Netflix or Amazon to build software at scale, or require high availability.
I haven’t really seen anyone make that assumption. I don’t think the article blindly assumes anything, they provided some pretty concrete examples of why a decentralized platform may solve some of the issues with centralized social media.
I think the author is more saying that no political party (whether or not they like them) should be able to control it. I don't see anywhere in the article that would suggest they don't want certain people to use it. Just that they don't want people in positions of political power to be able to spy on users of social media and/or take their data at their will.
> Their intent can be noble, well-intentioned, and not meant to offend. They simply don't beat around the bush or worry about whether your fragile ego will be bruised when they make an observation.
I mean maybe, but maybe Carmac is just an ass hole... He can be a "legend" in the software development world and also just not be a super great person socially. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.
I don't disagree with you entirely, but being "direct" isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for poor interpersonal skills. It's not always about "fragile egos" or "entitlement", it's about basic professionalism and communication.
There are still plenty of programmers that care about quality rather than stuff like vibe coding. Most programmers I know don't take vibe coding (defined as making an app with 100% llm generated code and not looking at the code at all) too seriously. They still care about the quality of the code they write.
I read the repo more as "go through this if you want to have a greater understanding of how things work on a lower level inside your computer". In other words, presumably it's not only intended for people who want to contribute to a video codec/other parts of ffmpeg. But I'm also NTA, so could be wrong.
That makes sense, especially if your building web applications that are primarily "just" CRUD operations. If a lot of the API calls follow the same pattern and the application is just a series of API calls + React UI then that seems like something an LLM would excel at. LLM's are also more proficient in TypeScript/JS/Python compared to other languages, so that helps as well.
Yea I agree it seems like (for my own team anyways), one group channel would work a lot better than a per person channel for everyone. I think some people may feel more likely to post, especially work related topics, in a group channel rather than starting solo threads in their own "ramblings" channel. One channel is also easier and "less work" to look through than n number of channels. This is very subjective though I guess, so I could be wrong.
Your first point doesn't mean that universal health care in the US would not be expensive. It definitely would, not that the USG couldn't afford it, but it wouldn't be cheap.
I think it definitely has been like this for a long time now at least. The most obvious example that comes to mind is Facebook. They harvested millions of users data and used it for political manipulation (Cambridge Analytica) without users consent. I suppose now its more out in the open with the recent verdicts on allowing these companies to scrape the entirety of the web stealing millions of IP's to use for their models, among other things.