But I think my own clients will soon start to question why some feature takes ME a week, when I was able to deliver another feature in a day or two.

That they are features that used to take months, and even delivering them in a week is a goddamn miracle by 2025 standards, will not be relevant. They won't expect such features to take months any longer, based on what I've delivered earlier this year.

So I think that the past few and maybe next few months, maybe a year, will be remembered as a "happy hour" for this tech as a developer. These are the days that we'll talk about saying "those were the days". :)

I am still optimistic that "the normal" in a few years will be pretty much like it has been before - I'll be delivering features at work and tinkering with hobby projects at home, and the major difference will be a much larger scope and ambition for both.

So far I feel like I as a developer have gained actual superpowers, and can deliver results that make my stakeholders slackjawed with awe. I love it.

It will last perhaps a few months more, then they'll expect it. Delivering more features faster will be the new normal. But I think system developers, as in people who actually like to deliver new features and systems, will still be the ones doing it.

Fundamentally I think LLM's just change how to make information systems, they don't change who has the inclination to make them.

MBA's making excel sheets that do more than excel was ever intended to do has given programmers lots of work over the years. Such solutions identify a need for a properly designed system and frees up the budget to hire programmers.

If the same MBAs start vibe coding, I predict we will get even more to do, for similar reasons.

I may be horribly wrong, and if the day comes that I realize that it will be the "oh shit" panicked moment. So far so good!

Power generation will still be profitable in my imagined scenario, just not from selling the raw electricity as a product.

Luckily there are several industries that make more money the cheaper electricity is, so there is some market pull in that direction already. Data centers tend to cluster around places with cheap power and/or cold climates, for example.

Consider roads. Having free access to road networks generates enormous value for society, much more than if we had tried to extract tolls on every road.

I think the same should apply for electricity. Free or nearly free access to electricity is likely to create value that far outweighs the value generated by selling electricity.

The existing power-selling industry will of course fight this every chance they get.

One understandable (not saying it's good, just understandable) reason is if your business is selling electricity from a source more expensive than solar. Which is just about every source.

I think power producers will eventually have to combine power generation with activities that generate money separately from selling electricity. Like heavy industry, datacenters etc.

Naturally you can also have a LLM one-shot a 14000 line PHP monstrosity - it's up to you still, LLM or not.

The main problem is that it'll probably be a waste of time to code anything yourself if Claude is back online in 8 hrs. It's like walking to the next bus stop when you missed your bus - it won't make you get home any sooner.

8 hrs will probably be better spent reading specs or checking things with stakeholders so the next features you let Claude implement are the ones the business actually wants.

Then again the uproar might be the point of the experiment.

Edit: As an electric Ferrari family car it’s not too bad imo. Making it look like a mid-engine v12 would be silly, since it’s not that.

Do you use gnome-photos or shotwell, and does the system tell you how to use either? Do you use rythmbox or gnome-music - or for that matter, do you use KDE, xkcd, budgie, cinnamon or MATE?

Does the software installation show you how to install HAM-radio tools in the same UI as where you install Spotify or Chrome? Does changing the theme also change the terminal theme? Browser theme? Are useful tools like localsend included by default?

I haven't used Ubuntu "proper" in years, so all of my questions may be outdated, but Omakub certainly felt like a breath of fresh air when I tried it. It really felt like a big step forward for attention to detail compared to any other linux distro I have tried.

Not perfect by any means, but still, I think the "proper" distros should take some inspiration from it.

I'd love to see a bunch of similar projects based on slackware, debian, suse or whatever.

I think most current distros/DE's dump "everything and the kitchen sink" at the user leaving him or her to finish the setup themselves. They stop short of actually presenting a good, unified experience. That's how it has been for ages of course, and Omakub is basically a "distro skin" that IMO has been lacking from distros all this time.

Picking a set of sensible default apps and making them 100% integrated and well documented is just nice. Ubuntu with Omakub just feels more like a finished OS than Ubuntu itself does.

Omarchy on the other hand is as much a distribution as most other popular distributions. Sure, based on arch, but if that disqualifies it then most distros are "not distros" all of a sudden. So I call Omarchy a distro.

I get why it exists and I use it for convenience since I like Arch anyway - but I would actually have preferred a few more variants on omakub, personally.

These days Aperture is long gone and Itunes will let me make playlists where if I own the song, I can't play it cause it's not synced. If I don't own the song, it plays fine.

It's like nobody cares anymore, and back around 2008 that was the killer feature of the Mac - it was the computer and OS where it seemed like someone cared, about every little thing.

Very few shows like that, but Ted Lasso actually reminded me a lot of NEX in how it made me feel.

x86/64 is looking more and more like the next Alpha or MIPS in many ways.

Anyone with a hot negative take on Steve Jobs should watch some of the interviews and presentations he gave as early as the 80s. To me he comes across as a really sharp and surprisingly genuine person. Certainly with flaws but compared to others he just seems real, for lack of a better word.

The things he says are sometimes amazingly prescient, like the interview was made in the 2000s instead of decades earlier, and it's interesting how much effort he puts in to trying to explain it to those who had no idea. It certainly impresses me, when I see it with the benefit of knowing what happened.

I would have loved to see his take on the current AI developments. There is a primordial stew bubbling now that reminds me of both the personal computer and smartphone revolutions but nobody in the circus seems to have any real idea what the most important implications are. I think Steve might have.

The initial investment in chip fabs is so big it can't be justified when the established players already make enough to satisfy demand, but right now they don't so there's an opportunity.

It's still risky for sure but it makes some sense that it happens now. Hyperscalers spend 100s of billions yearly, at some point the amount given to TSMC gets larger than starting your own fab.

If success was guaranteed (it's not, as AMD and several others have learned) I think many more co's would start their own fabs in the current market.

As for why xAI, well why not - many of the others who can afford a fabbing attempt can't risk getting on TSMC's bad side even for a year or two.

The fallout does not necessarily fall er, out closer to the plant. It depends on weather, which way the winds blew and where it happened to rain.

That said, you may by all means be right that the fears from what actually happened was too high. You may also be wrong, it's hard to tell.

But that is actually not relevant to the point. We know that actual Chernobyl caused expensive countermeasures to be deployed in a very large area for a long time because there was a measurable reason to do so.

The important thing to consider here is not how bad it actually was, but how bad it could have been.

If the plant had burned for months instead of days, it would have been so bad that any discussion about nuclear power today would only be done as satire.

Norway 2025: https://www.dsa.no/en/radioactivity-in-food-and-environment/...

"Every year, sheep herds in selected municipalities must be brought down onto cultivated land and given clean feed for a certain number of weeks before they can be slaughtered, in order to bring the levels in the meat down below the maximum permitted level."

Germany 2026, 3000 boar at 100-200 euros compensation each:

https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/fast-3000-verstrahlte-wildsch...

Scotland was done after "only" 25 years:

https://robedwards53.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/25-years-on-ch...

“It has taken nearly 25 years for the contamination of Scottish soils to decay to officially safe levels – and we're 1,400 miles away,”

Northern norway - scotland - bavaria - ukraine, that's about half the continental US affected for decades, so it's a fair comparison wouldn't you agree?

Sorry but this isn't true. You base this claim on what has happened but not what could have happened, which is a mistake.

The actual truth is that 1 Chernobyl almost ruined Europe. If the heroic individuals who managed to stop the graphite fire had said "f it I'm outta here" instead of sacrificing their lives, it would have made large areas in far corners of Europe uninhabitable, and even larger areas unsuitable for farming, for decades.

This is not hyperbole, it is a likely outcome based on the amount of material that would have been released and prevailing weather patterns.

It didn't actually happen, but it could have. We were spared the worst case scenarios from Chernobyl.

100 Chernobyls would not have been 100 Chernobyls that lasted for a week, most of them would have pumped out sterilizing levels of radiation for months. Nothing humans have done to date would be comparable to such a scenario.

Danger is not related to what has happened, but what could happen. This is important to keep in mind when discussing things that will have consequences for centuries. Many things happen over centuries, we're not even a century from WW2 yet.

>To consider Deepwater Horizon "ancient history" is a particularly astonishing claim

Figuratively, of course. I meant that the deepwater event is handled and done. We don't actively need to consider how to handle it today. Nature is still recovering but you can eat any fish you catch in the gulf without worrying about the oil spill and you don't need to clean any birds.

Chernobyl is not over, and won't be for the foreseeable future. It could cause new fallout 100 years from now, our grandchildren might have to pay for a new sarcophagus, at the very least pay for maintenance of the existing one. It is an ongoing cost on several national budgets.

Only a very few things that humans do really compares to the the consequences from nuclear power. It's troubling to see it being so severely misunderstood and belittled even on a forum like this. If we decide to do it it should at the very least be with a good understanding of the actual risks.

Indisputable fact. ;-)

And affected an area about the size of half the continental US, causing expensive countermeasures to be taken for 40 years and counting.

Maybe once was enough?

When did a dam failure in the Ukraine affect wildlife in Sweden for 30+ years? It's kind of a several-orders-of-magnitude larger area being affected for orders-of-magniture longer timespans.

Exxon valdez and even deepwater horizon is ancient history, Chernobyl is not, in fact it's current events. And will be, for the foreseeable future, as will Fukushima.

No Japanese alive today will stop paying for Fukushima for as long as they live. Are any other costs from the tsunami still ongoing?

>Happy to be proven wrong, but

Won't prove you wrong but maybe it will make you reconsider the link as a support of your argument:

Danger is what could happen, not what has actually happened.

A loaded gun is dangerous even if it hasn't been fired yet, nuclear plants are dangerous even if they haven't been bunker-buster-bombed yet. More so than any coal plant, tanker ship or hydro dam.

No, then the original statement would have to have been "we should keep paying big bills so we can have safe nuclear", but it wasn't.

To be more direct, using statistics about incidents to claim something is safe a fallacy. Something extremely dangerous that is kept safe through effort and expense won't appear in the stats until you remove the effort and expense.